GOVAN v. PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH GOVAN, 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-CV-5442
:
PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN 	:
RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al., 	:
Defendants. 	:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2025, upon consideration of Plaintiff Kenneth
Govan’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3), and 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 IN ITS ENTIRETY for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum, as
follows:
a. 	All claims against the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.
b. 	The remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim.
4. 	The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Commission as a Defendant in this case.
5. 	Mr. Govan 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
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 8 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 3

2
complaint in addition to identifying them in the body of the amended complaint and shall state
the basis for Govan’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 his amended complaint, Mr. Govan should be mindful of the
Court’s reasons for dismissing the claims in his initial Complaint as explained in the Court’s
Memorandum. Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service until
so ORDERED by the Court.
6. 	The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Govan 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. Mr. Govan may use this form to file his amended
complaint if he chooses to do so.
7. 	If Mr. Govan does not wish to amend his Complaint and instead intends to stand
on his Complaint as originally pled, he 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
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 8 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 3

3
“expressly warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . . . would result in the
dismissal of those claims”).
8. 	If Mr. Govan fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that
Govan intends to stand on his 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 him to take action to cure a defective
complaint).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
GERALD A. MCHUGH, 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-05442-GAM Document 8 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 3