Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 91-5239

• Citation: 951 F.2d 29
• Decision Date: 13 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. 91-5239,91-5239
• Parties: Stephen STACKHOUSE, Appellant, v. Joseph MAZURKIEWICZ, Warden; Sgt. Knepp, C.O. II; William Quick, C.O. I; D.A. Leathers, C.O. III; A. Anderson, C.O. I; Jesse Rush, IV, C.O. II; Tim Yutzy, C.O. Work Boss; Kunes C.O. Work Boss; Carrie Fromm, Institutional Psychologist; Rodriguez, C.O. I. . Submitted under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Page 29

951 F.2d 29

21 Fed.R.Serv.3d 675

Stephen STACKHOUSE, Appellant, v. Joseph MAZURKIEWICZ, Warden; Sgt. Knepp, C.O. II; William

Quick, C.O. I; D.A. Leathers, C.O. III; A. Anderson, C.O.

I; Jesse Rush, IV, C.O. II; Tim Yutzy, C.O. Work Boss;

Kunes C.O. Work Boss; Carrie Fromm, Institutional

Psychologist; Rodriguez, C.O. I.

No. 91-5239.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Sept. 13, 1991.

Decided Dec. 11, 1991.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1992.

Stephen Stackhouse, pro se.

Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Atty. Gen., Linda C. Barrett, Deputy Atty. Gen., Calvin R. Koons, Senior Deputy Atty. Gen., John G. Knorr, III, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Chief, Litigation Section, Office of Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for appellees.

Before SLOVITER, Chief Judge, and GREENBERG and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Stephen Stackhouse, a former Pennsylvania state prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, brought a civil rights action in the district court against various prison officials. His complaint raised numerous claims which we need not describe in detail. We simply point out that in general they assert that he was denied due process of law in disciplinary proceedings and that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment and for dismissal to which Stackhouse did not respond as required by Middle District Rule 401.6. Consequently, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted and the district court by order of February 13, 1991, adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the action. Neither the magistrate judge nor the court addressed the merits of the complaint. Stackhouse appeals.

While we are not unmindful of the problems of the district court in dealing with a large volume of litigation, we nevertheless conclude that under Anchorage Associates v. Virgin Islands Board of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168 (3d Cir.1990), this action should not have been dismissed solely on the basis of the local rule without any analysis of whether the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Local Rule 401.6 should be understood to facilitate the court's disposition of motions rather than to impose a sanction for failure to prosecute or defend. Anchorage Associates, 922 F.2d at 174. In a similar situation involving a local rule in Anchorage Associates, we held that a district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on the basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed.

While we acknowledge that Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) has no analog to the provision in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e), that if the adverse party...