United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Zachary Montano seeks to dismiss Howard Jordan, Jr.'s 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action for false arrest. Doc. 11. He
contends that plaintiff falsely answered the Court's form
§ 1983 Complaint by intentionally omitting, under
penalty of perjury, any reference to his prior litigation
history. See doc. 1 at 1 (marking “no”
to the question “Have you begun other lawsuits in state
or federal court dealing with the same facts involved in this
action?”), id. at 1-2 (listing no information
in the form area dedicated to prior litigation and cases).
Indeed, plaintiff brought this exact action under a
pseudonym. Bey v. Odell, Jr. et al., CV418-092 (S.D.
Ga. June 26, 2018) (dismissed without prejudice for failure
to comply with a court order). A comparison of the two
complaints reveals that, aside from scratching out his
additional last name “Bey” at multiple points
(see doc. 1 at 1, 4, 6), the two actions are
identical. Compare doc. 1 at 5 (“On or about
10-6-2017 I was kidnapped, and unlawfully arrested by state
tropper Zach Montano while traveling on a public highway.
Zach Montano said that, the reason I was being detained was
because I didn't pull over, when he tried to stop me for
speeding.”), with CV418-092, doc. 1 at 5
(“On 10-6-2017 I was kidnapped, and unlawfully arrested
by state tropper Zach Montano while traveling on a public
highway. Georgia state patrol Zach Montano stated to me, the
reason I was being detained was because I didn't stop
when he tried to pull me over for breaking the speed limit
law.”). That prior case, of course, was dismissed a
month before plaintiff filed this case, and a notice
of dismissal and judgment entered against him was sent to
Chatham County Detention Center, where he still resides.
See CV418-092. In short, plaintiff lied on his form
Complaint when he represented he had never before brought an
plaintiff is held to a lower standard than that of an
attorney because of his pro se status, Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652
(1972), that status cannot excuse the provision of false
information to this Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c);
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113
(1993) (it should not be “suggested that procedural
rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so
as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without
counsel”). Such abuse of the judicial process warrants
a dismissal without prejudice and a
“strike” under the Prisoner Litigation Reform
Act. Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 721-27 (11th
Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); 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 upon discovery
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,
2012 WL 1538368 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2012) (dismissing case
where plaintiff failed to disclose new case commenced in
interim between filing original complaint and second amended
complaint). In lieu of opposing or offering any semblance of
a contradiction to defendant's motion, plaintiff merely
“objects” that a warrantless arrest without
probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Doc. 13 at 1.
That may well be, but it does not unwind plaintiff's
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, nonexhaustively, Williamson v. Cty. of Johnson,
2019 WL 1140191 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 12, 2019); 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 Fed.Appx. 818 (11th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff's disclosures concerning his prior federal
lawsuit were blatantly dishonest, and this case should be
DISMISSED without prejudice as a sanction
for the dishonesty. This case shall serve as a strike for
PLRA purposes. The Clerk is further DIRECTED
to update the case caption to reflect plaintiff's
pseudonyms, “Howard Jordan Bey, Jr.” and
“Howard Jordan Jr. Bey” to deter future
R&R is submitted to the district judge assigned to this
action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this
Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any
party may file written objections to this R&R with the
Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time
to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 Fed.Appx. 542,
545 (11th Cir. 2015).