United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EM'S UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
an inmate at Central State Prison in Macon, Georgia, brings a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events
alleged to have occurred at Augusta State Medical Prison in
Grovetown, 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 as a
sanction for abuse of the judicial process by providing
dishonest information about his prior filing history.
prisoner attempting to proceed IFP in a civil action in
federal court must comply with the mandates of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Title 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 723-28.
end, the “Questionnaire for Prisoners Proceeding Pro Se
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” for the Middle District of
Georgia requires that prisoner plaintiffs disclose: (1)
whether they ever submitted a lawsuit for filing dealing with
the same facts involved in the present lawsuit or otherwise
related to their imprisonment, (2) whether, while
incarcerated or detained, they ever submitted a lawsuit for
filing dealing with facts other than those involved in the
present lawsuit, and (3) whether any such suit filed in
federal court was dismissed on the ground that it was
frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim.
Plaintiff indicated he had not previously filed any lawsuit
in federal court. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 2-3.) However, the Court
is aware of at least three other § 1983 cases Plaintiff
previously filed in federal court. See Andrew v. Georgia
Dep't of Corr., et al., CV 514-311 (M.D. Ga. Aug.
28, 2014); Andrew v. Bryson, et al., CV 515-307
(M.D. Ga. Aug. 10, 2015); Andrew v. Georgia Dep't of
Corr., et al., CV 517-216 (M.D. Ga. June 8, 2017). 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 . . . 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
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 a
plaintiff's failure to disclose prior cases on the
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