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 housed at Rogers 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.) Plaintiff filed a Declaration in
Support of Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,
(doc. 2), which the Court construed as a Motion to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 4.) The Court deferred
ruling on Plaintiff's Motion and directed Plaintiff to
re-submit his motion on this Court's preferred form.
Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. (Doc. 6.) For the reasons which follow, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions. For
these same reasons, I RECOMMEND that the
Court DISMISS without prejudice
Plaintiff's Complaint, DIRECT the Clerk
of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the
appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENY
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
Complaint, Plaintiff asserts he had an asthma attack during
the middle of the night. Plaintiff contends there are no
panic buttons in the cells or any other way to obtain
assistance from officers at Rogers State Prison. (Doc. 1, p.
5.) In addition, Plaintiff avers there are no sprinklers in
the cells and no evacuation routes posted in the dormitory.
Plaintiff maintains he informed Defendants of these
conditions, yet they failed to take corrective action.
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 Fed.Appx. 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 . . .
.”) (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 form directly asks Plaintiff whether he has
“brought any lawsuits in federal court”
“[w]hile incarcerated or detained in any
facility” prior to his current filing. (Doc. 1, p.
2.) Plaintiff marked the blank for “No”.
(Id.) However, a search of Plaintiff's
litigation history reveals that he has filed at least one
other cause of action prior to executing his Complaint on
December 29, 2017: Compl., Smith v. U.S. Dist. Court for
the N. Dist. of Ga., 4:17-cv-00213 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 18,
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
Fed.Appx. 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
Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 340,
341 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); Young v. Sec'y Fla. for
Dep't of Corr., 380 Fed.Appx. 939, 941 (11th Cir.
2010) (same); Hood v. Tompkins, 197 Fed.Appx. 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
Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. at 941 (finding that not having
documents concerning prior litigation and not being able to
pay for copies of same did not absolve prisoner ...