United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate at Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, has
submitted a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
regarding events at Johnson State Prison in Wrightsville,
Georgia. Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis
(“IFP”), Plaintiff's complaint must be
screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v.
Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984);
Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App'x 733, 736 (11th
Cir. 2006). After a review of Plaintiff's complaint and
prior history of case filings, the Court
REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this
action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
prisoner attempting to proceed IFP in a civil action in
federal court must comply with the mandates of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) of the PLRA provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
provision of the PLRA, commonly known as the three strikes
provision, requires frequent filer prisoners to prepay the
entire filing fee before federal courts may consider their
lawsuits and appeals.” Rivera v. Allin, 144
F.3d 719, 723 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted),
abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007). The Eleventh Circuit has upheld the
constitutionality of § 1915(g) because it does not
violate an inmate's right to access to the courts, the
doctrine of separation of powers, an inmate's right to
due process of law, or an inmate's right to equal
protection. Id. at 721-27.
end, the “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights
(Prisoner)” for the Southern District of Georgia
requires that prisoner plaintiffs disclose: (1) whether they
have brought any federal lawsuit that was dismissed based on
the “three strikes rule, ” (2) whether they have
brought any federal lawsuit involving the same facts as their
present case, and (3) whether they have brought any other
federal lawsuit otherwise relating to the conditions of their
Plaintiff arguably identified three previous cases he filed,
Cassady v. Walker et al., CV 109-128 (S.D. Ga. Oct.
16, 2009); Cassady v. Owens et al., CV 408-250 (S.D.
Ga. Dec. 15, 2008); and Cassady v. Hamrick, CV
407-188 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 26, 2007). (Doc. no. 1, pp. 16-18.)
However, the Court is aware of at least five other §
1983 cases Plaintiff previously filed in federal court.
See Cassady v. Hall et al., CV 515-255 (M.D. Ga.
June 30, 2015); Cassady v. Hall et al., CV 514-025
(M.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2014); Cassady v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. et al., CV 313-092 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2013);
Cassady v. Milton et al., CV 412-008 (S.D. Ga. Jan.
13, 2012); Cassady v. Williams et al., CV 408-177
(S.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2008). Thus, Plaintiff provided false
information about his prior filing history in his complaint.
Eleventh Circuit has indicated its approval of dismissing a
case based on dishonesty in a complaint. In Rivera,
the Court of Appeals reviewed a prisoner plaintiff's
filing history for the purpose of determining whether prior
cases counted as “strikes” under the PLRA and
The district court's dismissal without prejudice in
Parker is equally, if not more, strike-worthy. In
that case, the court found that Rivera had lied under penalty
of perjury about the existence of a prior lawsuit,
Arocho. As a sanction, the court dismissed the
action without prejudice, finding that Rivera “abuse[d]
the judicial process[.]”
Rivera, 144 F.3d at 731 (citations omitted); see
also Young v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Corr., 380 F.
App'x 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal
under inherent power of federal courts based on
plaintiff's failure to disclose prior cases on
court's complaint form).
practice of dismissing a case as a sanction for providing
false information about prior filing history is also well
established in the Southern District of Georgia. See,
e.g., Brown v. Wright, CV 111-044 (S.D. Ga.
June 17, 2011); Hood v. Tompkins, CV 605-094 (S.D.
Ga. Oct. 31, 2005), aff'd, 197 F. App'x 818
(11th Cir. 2006). Because Plaintiff provided blatantly
dishonest answers in his complaint, this case should be