United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
STAN BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
who is currently incarcerated at Georgia State Prison in
Reidsville, Georgia, filed a cause of action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 contesting certain conditions of his
confinement. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons that follow, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis before this Court. (Doc. 3.)
Further, I RECOMMEND that the Court
DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint,
DIRECT the Clerk of Court to
CLOSE this case, and DENY
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
alleges that Defendants have violated his constitutional
rights by refusing to house him in the medical dorm. (Doc. 1,
p. 5.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. (Id. at p.
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. §
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.
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. Twombly, 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)).
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,
Plaintiff's 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
Dismissal for Abuse of Judicial Process
Complaint, Plaintiff indicates that he has never initiated
another lawsuit while incarcerated or detained. (Doc. 1, pp.
1-3.) However, the case management system shows that
Plaintiff has brought at least four (4) other previous
actions while incarcerated. See e.g., Order,
Thomas v. Hall, et al., No. 6:17-cv-54 (S.D. Ga.
July 25, 2017), ECF No. 8 (dismissed for failure to follow
court orders and failure to prosecute); Compl., Thomas v.
Broome, et al., No. 6:17-cv-74 (S.D. Ga. May 17, 2017),
ECF No. 1.
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. Sheriff's 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's pro se status will not excuse
mistakes regarding procedural rules.” Id. at
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'y 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 Plaintiff's 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 ...