United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EFPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate incarcerated at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville,
Georgia, has submitted a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 regarding events alleged to have occurred 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 of 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 “Form to be Used by Prisoners in Filing a
Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §
1983” for the Southern District of Georgia requires
that prisoner plaintiffs disclose: (1) whether they have
brought any lawsuit involving the same facts as their present
case; (2) whether they have brought any federal lawsuit
dealing with facts other than those in their present case;
and (3) whether they were allowed to proceed IFP in any suit
that was dismissed on the ground it was frivolous, malicious,
or failed to state a claim.
Plaintiff identified two other previous cases he filed:
Glenn v. Williams et al., CV 517-401 (M.D. Ga. Oct.
20, 2017) and Glenn v. Johnson State Prison et al.,
CV 316-029 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 25, 2016). (Doc. no. 18, pp. 1-3.)
However, the Court is aware of at least one other § 1983
case Plaintiff previously filed in federal court. See
Glenn v. Madison County Sheriff's Department et al.,
CV 316-008 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2015). Thus, Plaintiff provided
false information about his prior filing history in his
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), affd, 197 F. App'x 818 (11th
Cir. 2006). Because Plaintiff provided blatantly dishonest
answers in his complaint, this case should be dismissed.