United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
DANTE G. FREDERICK, Plaintiff,
F. BARRY WILKES, J. WILLIAMS, Defendants.
pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Dante
Frederick has filed this civil rights case against defendants
Wilkes and Williams, clerks for the Superior Court of Liberty
County. Doc. 1. He alleges that they have refused to docket a
civil action that he submitted for filing in that court.
Id. His complaint, a mishmash of the Northern
District's § 1983 form complaint and his own
handwritten creation, was dismissed without
prejudice when he failed to comply with the
Court's order to file an amended complaint and Prisoner
Trust Fund Statement. Doc. 9. Construing plaintiffs
"motion for understanding" as a motion to reopen
his case, Dante Frederick's motion is GRANTED. Doc. 12.
Plaintiff will be given one more opportunity to comply with
the Court's instructions.
plaintiff must resubmit his complaint on this Court's
form within thirty days of the date this Order is served.
Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to complete the attached Form
to be Used by Prisoners in Filing a Complaint Under the Civil
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires that
prisoner plaintiffs disclose: (1) whether they have brought
other federal lawsuits while incarcerated, (2) whether they
were allowed to proceed IFP in any such lawsuits, and (3)
whether any such suit was dismissed on the ground that it was
frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a
claim. Failure to comply with this order
within thirty days from the date this Order is served will
result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.
must also furnish the enclosed Prisoner Trust Fund Account
Statement to the trust (financial) officer of each prison
where he has been confined for the past six months. The trust
officer will complete and sign the form and return the form
and supporting documents to plaintiff for submission to the
Court. Two copies of the form are enclosed for this purpose.
must return both the Form to be Used by Prisoners in Filing a
Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
and the Prisoner Trust Account Statement to the Clerk within
30 days of this Order, or his case will again be recommended
Frederick has complied with the conditions of this Order, the
Court will review his complaint to determine which, if any,
claims are viable and which, if any, defendants should be
served with a copy of the complaint. If no response is timely
received from plaintiff, the Court will presume that he
desires to have this case voluntarily dismissed and will
dismiss this action without prejudice.
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve along with a copy of this
Order (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form complaint; (2) a
Prisoner Trust Account Statement form; and (3) (pursuant to
plaintiffs request, as it is "impossible to remember all
[the] facts without look[ing] at filing
'original'") a copy of his original complaint
(doc. 1). Doc. 12 at 3. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the
service of this Order to fill out and return both forms.
to comply with this Order within thirty days will result in
the dismissal of plaintiffs case, without prejudice.
 As the Court noted in its December
The federal courts have long made available to jails
and prisons specific forms for filing habeas and civil rights
cases. In Williams v. Freesemann, 2015 WL 6798946 at
* 1 n. 4 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 15, 2015), this Court noted that some
inmate-litigants bypass those forms in favor of
"home-brewed" filings. Adverse factors can motivate
that effort. The Court's forms force inmates to answer
questions aimed at capturing things like 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) strikes and repeat (e.g., successive writ)
habeas filings. See, e.g., Bright v. Corizon Health
Corp., 2015 WL 9257155 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 18, 2015)
("Bright's incentive to omit his prior case
information is strong because of the § 1915(g)
three-strike bar."). "Home-brewers" typically
omit those prophylactic questions from their filings.
Doc. 9 at 1-2.
 This Court's § 1983 complaint
form, which is availed to all prisons and jails, see
compels inmates to disclose prior lawsuits. That data is
necessary to enforce the "Three Strikes" rule
illuminated in Owens v. Morales, 2015 WL 5040245 at * 1 (S.D.
Ga. Aug. 25, 2015). See Boney v. Hickey, 2014 WL 4103918 at *
4-5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2014) (collecting cases that discuss
what constitutes a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) ...