Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz
951 F.2d 29
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1991-12-11
- Topic
- general
holding that Rule 12(b)(6) motions should not be granted without an analysis of the merits of the underlying complaint | holding that a district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on the basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed.” | holding that a district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on the basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed.” | holding that a district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on the basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed. | holding that a district court granting an unopposed motion to dismiss in a pro 2 se case must ordinarily engage in an analysis of the merits | concluding that even if a complaint is incorrectly dismissed for failure to prosecute, this court may affirm on the merits where the complaint fails to state a claim | concluding that district courts generally should not grant Rule12(b)(6) motions as uncontested without analyzing such motions on their merits, although it may be appropriate to grant such motions as uncontested where the plaintiff is represented by an attorney | concluding that district courts generally should not grant Rule 12(b)(6) motions as uncontested without analyzing such motions on their merits, although it may be appropriate to grant such motions as uncontested where the plaintiff is represented by an attorney | recognizing its prior precedent that a district court should not grant “summary judgment solely on the basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed” | finding that a court may dismiss a complaint without addressing its merits where a party fails to comply with a court order requiring compliance with a local rule | noting that “[t]here may be some cases where the failure of a party to oppose a motion will indicate that the motion is in fact not opposed, particularly if the party is represented by an attorney.” | allowing for dismissal when party fails to comply with local rules after court issues direction to comply | remanding to the district court where claims were dismissed on the basis that no opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed rather than on the district court’s analysis of the sufficiency of the claims | explaining that “if a motion to dismiss is granted solely because it has not been opposed, the case is simply not being dismissed because the complaint has failed to state a claim . . . . Rather, it is dismissed as a sanction for failure to comply with [the briefing schedule]” | finding the failure of a plaintiff to comply with a court’s specific direction to comply with a local rule which required the filing of an opposing brief, warranted the treatment of a motion to dismiss as being unopposed and subject to dismissal without a merits analysis | finding the failure of a plaintiff to comply with a court’s specific direction to comply with a local rule which required the filing of an opposing brief, warranted the treatment of a motion to dismiss as being unopposed and subject to dismissal without a merits analysis | finding the failure of a plaintiff to comply with a court’s specific direction to comply with a local rule which required the filing of an opposing brief, warranted the treatment of a motion to dismiss as being unopposed and subject to dismissal without a merits analysis | finding the failure of a plaintiff to comply with a court’s specific direction to comply with a local rule which required the filing of an opposing brief, warranted the treatment of a motion to dismiss as being unopposed and subject to dismissal without a merits analysis | motion to dismiss is not to be granted solely on the basis that an opposition has not been filed in accordance with local rules | motion to dismiss is not to be granted solely on the basis that an opposition has not been filed in accordance with local rules | “[A] Rule 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted without an analysis of the merits of the underlying complaint notwithstandin
Citator
- Cited by
- 97 opinions
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.
[3] While we are not unmindful of the problems of the district court in dealing with a large volume of litigation, we nevertheless conclude that underAnchorage Associates v. VirginIslands 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.AnchorageAssociates,922 F.2d at 174. In a similar situation involving a local rule inAnchorage 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.
[4] 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 does not respond to a motion for summary judgment the motion may be granted "if appropriate," we do not think that this distinguishes the rules for present purposes. The fact is that if a motion to dismiss is granted solely because it has not been opposed, the case is simply not being dismissed because the complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Rather, it is dismissed as a sanction for failure to comply with the local court rule.
[5] In reaching our result, we do not suggest that the district court may never rely on the local rule to treat a motion to dismiss as unopposed and subject to a dismissal without a merits analysis. There may be some cases where the failure of a party to oppose a motion will indicate that the motion is in fact not opposed, particularly if the party is represented by an attorney and in that situation the rule may be appropriately invoked. Nor do we suggest that if a party fails to comply with the rule after a specific direction to comply from the court, the rule cannot be invoked. Thus, our holding is not broad.
[6] We realize, of course, that we could make our own analysis of the complaint and, if we found that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, we could affirm on that basis. In fact we have done that and, while we are reluctant to comment on the merits of the case in its current posture, have concluded that it is possible that some aspects of the complaint might survive a motion to dismiss if addressed on the merits. In these circumstances, we conclude that the complaint should in the first instance be considered substantively by the district court.
[7] The order of February 13, 1991, will be reversed and the matter will be remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties will bear their own costs on this appeal.Page 521