ALLEN v. NELSON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIYOSHI ALLEN, 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-CV-5940
:
BERNICE NELSON, 	:
Defendant. 	:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2026, upon consideration of Plaintiff Miyoshi
Allen’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), pro se Complaint (ECF No. 2), and
Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 5), 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 IN PART WITH PREJUDICE AND IN PART
WITHOUT PREJUDICE as follows:
a. 	Allen’s constitutional claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
b. 	Allen’s state law claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons in the Court’s Memorandum.
4. 	Allen 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 Allen’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
Case 2:25-cv-05940-JS Document 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3

claim. When drafting her amended complaint, Allen should be mindful of the Court’s reasons
for dismissing the claims in her initial Complaint as explained in the Court’s Memorandum.
Allen should not include in the amended complaint any claim that has already been
dismissed with prejudice. 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 Allen a blank copy of this Court’s
current standard form to be used by a self-represented litigant filing a civil action bearing the
above-captioned civil action number. Allen may use this form to file her amended complaint if
she chooses to do so.
6. 	If Allen does not wish to amend her Complaint and instead intends to stand on her
Complaint as originally pled, 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, 241 (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”).
Case 2:25-cv-05940-JS Document 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3

7. 	If Allen fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that Allen
intends to stand on her Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.1 See 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 her to take action to cure a defective complaint)
8. 	Allen’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
JUAN R. SÁNCHEZ, J.
1 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 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)).
Case 2:25-cv-05940-JS Document 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3