Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order — Natasha Collins v. Small Business Adminstration (SBA) Restaurant Revitalization Fund, Civil Action No. 22-CV-4104 (Dkt. 6, E.D. Pa.)

Order — Natasha Collins v. Small Business Adminstration (SBA) Restaurant Revitalization Fund, Civil Action No. 22-CV-4104 (Dkt. 6, E.D. Pa.)

Summary

An order dated January 6, 2023 and signed by Gerald A. McHugh in Natasha Collins v. Small Business Adminstration (SBA) Restaurant Revitalization Fund, Civil Action No. 22-CV-4104, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It grants Collins leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, deems the pro se complaint filed and dismisses it without prejudice for the reasons in the court's memorandum. Collins may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days that names every defendant in the caption and states the basis for each claim, and the Clerk is directed to send a blank copy of the court's form complaint. If Collins gives notice of standing on the original complaint, or files no response, the court will issue a final order dismissing the case.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

            Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP      Document 6        Filed 01/06/23     Page 1 of 3




                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATASHA COLLINS,             :
    Plaintiff,               :
                             :
      v.                     :                       CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-CV-4104
                             :
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION :
(SBA) RESTAURANT             :
REVITALIZATION FUND,         :
      Defendant.             :

                                             ORDER

       AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2023, upon consideration of Plaintiff Natasha

Collins’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 4), and pro se Complaint (ECF No. 1)

it is ORDERED that:

       1.       Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

       2.       The Complaint is DEEMED filed.

       3.       The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated

in the Court’s Memorandum.

       4.       Ms. Collins may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of

this Order. Any amended complaint must identify all defendants in the caption of the amended

complaint in addition to identifying them in the body of the amended complaint and shall state

the basis for Collins’s claims against each defendant. The amended complaint shall be a

complete document that does not rely on the initial Complaint or other papers filed in this case to

state a claim. When drafting her amended complaint, Collins should be mindful of the Court’s

reasons for dismissing the claims in her initial Complaint as explained in the Court’s
            Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP          Document 6       Filed 01/06/23      Page 2 of 3




Memorandum. Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service until

so ORDERED by the Court.

       5.         The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Collins a blank copy of this Court’s

form complaint bearing the above-captioned civil action number. Ms. Collins may use this form

to file her amended complaint if she chooses to do so.1

       6.         If Ms. Collins does not wish to amend and instead intends to stand on her

submission as originally filed, she may file a notice with the Court within thirty (30) days of the

date of this Order stating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing

the case. Any such notice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint,” and shall include the

civil action number for this case. See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019) (“If the

plaintiff does not desire to amend, he may file an appropriate notice with the district court

asserting his intent to stand on the complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would

be appropriate.” (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n.1 (3d Cir. 1976))); In re

Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703-04 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding “that the district court did

not abuse its discretion when it dismissed with prejudice the otherwise viable claims . . .

following plaintiffs’ decision not to replead those claims” when the district court “expressly

warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . . . would result in the dismissal of

those claims”).

       7.         If Ms. Collins fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that

Collins intends to stand on her Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.2 See



       1
         This form is available on the Court’s website at
https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/forms/frmcgenf.pdf.
       2
        The six-factor test announced in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d
863 (3d Cir. 1984), is inapplicable to dismissal orders based on a plaintiff’s intention to stand on
                                                    2
         Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP          Document 6       Filed 01/06/23      Page 3 of 3




Weber, 939 F.3d at 239-40 (explaining that a plaintiff’s intent to stand on his complaint may be

inferred from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a defective

complaint).

                                              BY THE COURT:

                                                      /s/ Gerald Austin McHugh

                                              GERALD A. MCHUGH, J.




her complaint. See Weber, 939 F.3d at 241 & n.11 (treating the “stand on the complaint”
doctrine as distinct from dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to
comply with a court order, which require assessment of the Poulis factors); see also Elansari v.
Altria, 799 F. App’x 107, 108 n.1 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Indeed, an analysis under Poulis
is not required when a plaintiff willfully abandons the case or makes adjudication impossible, as
would be the case when a plaintiff opts not to amend her complaint, leaving the case without an
operative pleading. See Dickens v. Danberg, 700 F. App’x 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam)
(“Where a plaintiff’s conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or
where the plaintiff's behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of the case impossible,
a balancing of the Poulis factors is not necessary.”); Baker v. Accounts Receivables Mgmt., Inc.,
292 F.R.D. 171, 175 (D.N.J. 2013) (“[T]he Court need not engage in an analysis of the
six Poulis factors in cases where a party willfully abandons her case or otherwise makes
adjudication of the matter impossible.” (citing cases)).
                                                 3

File and source

File
6-order.pdf
Size
212,935 bytes
SHA-256
5d609885c0ec559f112f73e2bed80ffaf6638c9a985d13ec4751a64a68bcd8c6
Our copy
6-order.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top