ARMOND v. FALLS TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NICOLE M. ARMOND, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-CV-5097
:
FALLS TOWNSHIP, :
Defendant. :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of October, 2026, upon consideration of Plaintiff Nicole M.
Armond’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), Amended Complaint (ECF No.
5), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 6), and Motion for Expedited Consideration of
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Screening of First Amended Complaint (ECF No.
8), it is ORDERED that:
1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
2. The Amended Complaint is DEEMED filed.
3. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the
reasons in the Court’s Memorandum.
4. Armond may file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date
of this Order. Any second amended complaint must identify all defendants in the caption of the
second amended complaint in addition to identifying them in the body of the second amended
complaint and shall state the basis for Armond’s claims against each defendant. The second
amended complaint shall be a complete document that does not rely on the initial Complaint,
Amended Complaint, or other papers filed in this case to state a claim. When drafting her
second amended complaint, Armond should be mindful of the Court’s reasons for dismissing the
Case 2:26-cv-05097-JS Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
claims in her Amended Complaint as explained in the Court’s Memorandum. Upon the filing of
a second amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service until so ORDERED by the Court.
5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Armond 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. Armond may use this form to file her second amended
complaint if she chooses to do so.
6. If Armond does not wish to amend her complaint and instead intends to stand on
her Amended 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 Amended
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”).
7. If Armond fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that
Armond intends to stand on her Amended Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this
Case 2:26-cv-05097-JS Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 6) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as premature.
9. The Motion for Expedited Consideration (ECF No. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT.
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 2:26-cv-05097-JS Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3