United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
an inmate at Hays State Prison in Trion, Georgia, is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
in this case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff commenced this case in the Northern District of
Georgia, but it was transferred to the Southern District
because the only Defendant originally named was located in
Grovetown, Georgia, within the Augusta Division of this
Court. (See doc. nos. 1, 5.) The Court directed Plaintiff to
file an amended complaint on the standard complaint form used
by incarcerated litigants in the Southern District, and it is
the amended complaint, which added twelve Defendants
scattered throughout Georgia, now before the Court. (See doc.
nos. 8, 9.)
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) (per curiam). 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 amended 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). After a review of Plaintiff's amended 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”), 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 filed other lawsuits in
state or federal court otherwise relating to the conditions
of their imprisonment, and (3) the disposition of any such
lawsuits. (Doc. no. 9, pp. 19-20.) Under the question
concerning whether a prisoner plaintiff has brought any
lawsuits otherwise relating to the conditions of his
imprisonment, the prisoner plaintiff who has brought any such
lawsuits is specifically instructed to describe each lawsuit,
including the court hearing the case, and 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 20.)
Case Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Failed to
Truthfully Disclose His Prior Cases
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Plaintiff
disclosed he filed one case in state court dealing with the
same facts as this case. (Doc. no. 9, p. 19.) That case was
dismissed by Superior Court Judge Charles P. Rose, Jr., named
in this case a Defendant, because “the pleading shows
on its face such a complete absence of justiciable issue of
law or fact that it cannot reasonably be believed that any
court could grant the requested relief against any
party.” (Id.; doc. no. 9-1, p. 2.) Plaintiff
also disclosed one federal habeas corpus case, Blount v.
Sprayberry, 1:19-cv-00996 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 1, 2019).
However, the Court is aware of at least two cases Plaintiff
filed in the Northern District of Georgia relating to the
conditions of his imprisonment but failed to disclose:
Blount v. Security Officer, 1:05-cv-00463 (N.D.Ga.
Feb. 17, 2005); Blount v. Unnamed Defendant,
1:04-cv-02058-JEC (N.D.Ga. July 14, 2004).
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)
(percuriam) (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) (per curiam) (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)
(per curiam) (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