Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Williams

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division

May 17, 2017

WILLIAM MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
v.
TRACEY WILLIAMS, Defendants.

          ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          R. STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Autry State Prison in Pelham, Georgia, filed a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Concurrently, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 4.) For the reasons which follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. For these same reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case, and DENY Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

         BACKGROUND

         In his Complaint, Plaintiff contends Defendant Williams, an Emanuel County Probation Officer, called him several weeks before his arrest and demanded that Plaintiff pay more money on the restitution portion of his sentence. (Doc. 1, p. 5.) Plaintiff also states that Defendant Matthew Mitchell threatened him and called his ex-fiancee derogatory names. It appears that Plaintiff lived in a house owned by Defendants Matthew and Melody Mitchell.[1] Plaintiff contends he went to that house to remove his things and, the next day, he was served with dispossessory and criminal trespass warrants. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant Williams appeared in court on July 16, 2014, with a petition to revoke his probation term based on these warrants, as well as charges of identity fraud and aggravated identity fraud. Plaintiff states Defendant Fizner, an assistant District Attorney, presented this petition to the court. According to Plaintiff, Defendants Matthew and Melody Mitchell planned to send him to prison in an effort to hurt Plaintiff, steal from him, and lose his fiancee. (Id. at p. 8.) Plaintiff maintains that all Defendants played a role in his false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims. (Id.)

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Plaintiff seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may authorize the filing of a civil lawsuit without the prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all of his assets and shows an inability to pay the filing fee and also includes a statement of the nature of the action which shows that he is entitled to redress. Even if the plaintiff proves indigence, the Court must dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity. Upon such screening, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         When reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is guided by the instructions for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 ("A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain [among other things] ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."); Fed.R.Civ.P. 10 (requiring that claims be set forth in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances). Further, a claim is frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) "if it is 'without arguable merit either in law or fact.'" Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).

         Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle. 393 F.App'x 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that standard, this Court must determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must assert "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not" suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also "accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).

         In its analysis, the Court will abide by the long-standing principle that the pleadings of unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and, therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) ("Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.") (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiffs unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) ("We have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.").

         DISCUSSION

         I. Dismissal for Abuse of Judicial Process

         The Complaint form directly asks Plaintiff whether he has "brought any lawsuits in federal court" "[w]hile incarcerated ... in any facility[ ]" prior to his current filing. (Doc. 1, p. 2 (emphasis supplied).) Plaintiff listed one such case, Mitchell v. Parole Board of Georgia, et al., l:16-cv-00194 (M.D. Ga.). However, a search of Plaintiffs litigation history reveals that he filed at least one other cause of action prior to executing his Complaint on April 18, 2017: Compl, Mitchell v. Burse, et al. l:16-cv-00199 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 2016), ECF No. 1. In addition, the Complaint form asks Plaintiff whether any suit in which he was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis was dismissed as being frivolous or malicious or failing to state a claim. (Id. at p. 3.) Plaintiff checked the space for "No". (Id.) However, Plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in Mitchell v. Burse, et al., and that case was dismissed based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim. Orders, Mitchell v. Burse, et al., l:16-cv-00199 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 10, 2016 and Mar. 20, 2017), ECF Nos. 5, 11.

         As previously stated, Section 1915 requires a court to dismiss a prisoner's action if, at any time, the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Significantly, "[a] finding that the plaintiff engaged in bad faith litigiousness or manipulative tactics warrants dismissal" under Section 1915. Redmon v. Lake Cty. Sheriffs Office, 414 F.App'x 221, 225 (11th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997)). In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) permits a court to impose sanctions, including dismissal, for "knowingly fil[ing] a pleading that contains false contentions." Id. at 225-26 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)). Again, although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, "a plaintiff spro se status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules." Id. at 226.

         Relying on this authority, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has consistently upheld the dismissal of cases where a pro se prisoner plaintiff has failed to disclose his previous lawsuits as required on the face of the Section 1983 complaint form. See, e.g., Redmon, 414 F.App'x at 226 (pro se prisoner's nondisclosure of prior litigation in Section 1983 complaint amounted to abuse of judicial process resulting in sanction of dismissal); Shelton v. Rohrs, 406 F.App'x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); Young v. Sec'v Fla. for Dep't of Corr., 380 F.App'x 939, 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); Hood v. Tompkins. 197 F.App'x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (same). Even where the prisoner has later provided an explanation for his lack of candor, the Court has generally rejected the proffered reason as unpersuasive. See, e.g., Redmon, 414 F.App'x at 226 ("The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Plaintiffs explanation for his failure to disclose the Colorado lawsuit-that he misunderstood the form- did not excuse the misrepresentation and that dismissal was a proper sanction."); Shelton, 406 F.App'x at 341 ("Even if [the plaintiff] did not have access to his materials, he would have known that he filed multiple previous lawsuits."); Young, 380 F.App'x at 941 (finding that not having documents concerning prior litigation and not being able to pay for copies of same did not absolve prisoner plaintiff "of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.