United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS UNITED STAINS MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate at Hays State Prison in Trion, Georgia, is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in this civil rights case. Because he is
proceeding IFP, Plaintiff's pleadings must be screened to
protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn,
746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v.
Donald, 165 Fed.Appx. 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006). The
Court affords a liberal construction to a pro se
litigant's pleadings, holding them to a more lenient
standard than those drafted by an attorney, Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), but the Court may
dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof if it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune to such relief. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
February 2, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff's original
complaint, but because of pleading deficiencies, could not
determine whether Plaintiff had any viable claims.
(See doc. no. 14.) The Court gave Plaintiff an
opportunity to attempt to cure those pleading deficiencies by
allowing him fourteen days to file an amended complaint.
(See id.) That amended complaint, signed February 7,
2018, is now before the Court. Not only did Plaintiff fail to
address the previously identified pleading deficiencies, but
after a review of Plaintiff's 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”), Pub. L. No.
104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). 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 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 Complaint)” requires that prisoner plaintiffs
disclose: (1) whether they have begun other lawsuits in state
or federal court dealing with the same facts involved in the
current action, (2) whether they have brought any state or
federal lawsuits otherwise relating to the conditions of
their imprisonment, and (3) the disposition of any such
lawsuits. (Doc. no. 17, pp. 8-10.) Under the questions
concerning whether a prisoner plaintiff has brought any
lawsuits dealing with the same facts involved in this action
or facts other than those involved in this action, the
prisoner plaintiff who has brought any such lawsuits is
specifically instructed to describe each lawsuit, including
the court hearing the case, the date of filing, and
disposition. (Id.) If there is more than one such
lawsuit, the additional lawsuits must be described on another
piece of paper. (Id. at 9-10.) By affixing his
signature to the complaint form, Plaintiff certifies the
accuracy of the information contained therein in accordance
with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Id. at 11.)
Plaintiff identified only one other lawsuit he filed based on
the same or different facts as those in the instant
complaint. (Id. at 9-10.) The Court is aware of at
least six other cases Plaintiff filed in federal court prior
to signing his amended complaint on February 7, 2018, two of
which appear to have some factual similarity to the instant
case in that they relate to a jaw injury and/or the treatment
Plaintiff has received for it. See Bradley v. Wendy,
4:17-CV-0297 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 27, 2017); Bradley v.
Gilbert, 4:17-CV-0298 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 27, 2017). At least
one other case relates to his conditions of imprisonment,
Bradley v. Lucas, 4:18-CV-0006 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 10,
2018). Plaintiff's other three cases relate to alleged
civil rights violations regarding the manner in which his
conviction was obtained and the manner in which his divorce
proceedings were conducted. See Bradley v. Boswell,
4:18-CV-0008 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 10, 2018); Bradley v.
Boswell, 4:18-CV-0007 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 10, 2018);
Bradley v. Marx, 3:17-CV-3317 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5,
Eleventh Circuit has approved 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 stated:
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; see also Sears v.
Haas, 509 Fed.Appx. 935, 936 (11th Cir. 2013) (affirming
dismissal of complaint where prisoner plaintiff failed to
accurately disclose previous litigation); Redmon v. Lake
Cty. Sheriff's Office, 414 Fed.Appx. 221, 223, 226
(11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal, after directing
service of process, of amended complaint raising claims that
included denial of proper medical care and cruel and unusual
punishment for placement in a “restraint chair”
and thirty-seven days of solitary confinement upon
discovering prisoner plaintiff failed to disclose one prior
federal lawsuit); Young v. Sec'y Fla.
Dep't of Corr., 380 Fed.Appx. 939, 940-41 (11th Cir.
2010) (affirming dismissal of third amended complaint based
on a plaintiff's failure to disclose prior cases on the
court's complaint form); Alexander v. Salvador,
No. 5:12cv15, 2012 WL 1538368 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2012)
(dismissing case alleging deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs where plaintiff failed to disclose new case
commenced in interim between filing original complaint and
second amended complaint), adopted by, Alexander v.
Salvador, No. 5:12cv15, 2012 WL 1538336 (N.D. Fla. May
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 Fed.Appx. 818 (11th Cir.
2006). As discussed above, Plaintiffs answers about filing
other federal lawsuits ...