United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
RANDALL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
careful, de novo review of the file, the Court
concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, to which objections have been filed, (doc.
nos. 18, 21). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the
case without prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff providing
dishonest information about his filing history. (See
doc. no. 16, pp. 1-5.) The Magistrate Judge also explained
the case is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff improperly
joined unrelated claims and Defendants, and recommended
denying an unsigned motion for a protective order that was
captioned for defendants other than those in this case. (See
Id. at 5-7.)
Plaintiff "objects unequivocally to every portion of the
7-16-19 Report and Recommendation," he does not deny or
dispute in his first set of objections that he failed to
disclose the cases identified by the Magistrate Judge. (Doc.
no. 18, p. 1.) In his second set of objections, Plaintiff
states he reviewed his trust account statement and cannot
find the two cases identified by Magistrate Judge, but he
also discloses a third case he filed in the Northern District
but did not disclose on his complaint form, Blount v.
Towns, 2:12-cv-00197 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 16, 2012). That
Plaintiff did not find the cases listed on his trust account
does not refute the Magistrate Judge's findings because
as the attached docket sheets for each case show, Plaintiffs
cases were dismissed prior to assessment of a filing fee. The
complaint form requires disclosure of filed cases, not only
cases in which filing fees were assessed. (See doc.
no. 9, p. 19.) Thus, Plaintiffs case is due to be dismissed
as a sanction for his dishonesty.
the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal based on
Plaintiffs dishonesty about his prior fling history, (doc.
no. 16, p. 7), the Report and Recommendation also explained,
"Claims based on separate events must be filed in
separate cases. . . . Plaintiff may not bring unrelated
claims in a single lawsuit about medical care he received at
separate locations, from separate medical providers, and at
different times." (Id. at 6.) In his first set
of objections, Plaintiff asks that all Defendants be dropped
from the case except Dr. Wells at Augusta State Medical
Prison, but he then asks the Court to subpoena records from
Tattnall Superior Court that cover "the same issues in
this complaint, that will bring a quicker verdict at
trial." (Doc. no. 18, p. 2.) In his second set of
objections, Plaintiff argues against dismissal by pointing to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 21 and its language that "[m]isjoinder of
parties is not a ground for dismissing an action." (Doc.
no. 21, p. 1.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff recognizes he
cannot proceed with all his claims in a single case.
Court is aware it has discretion to sua sponte
dismiss unrelated claims against unrelated defendants rather
than dismiss a case in its entirety. See Daker v.
Head, 730 Fed.Appx. 765, 768 (11th Cir. 2018) (per
curiam). While the Court adopts the Magistrate
Judge's analysis that Plaintiff has improperly attempted
to join unrelated claims and Defendants, the Court will not
adopt improper joinder as an alternative basis for dismissal
of the above-captioned case. The basis for dismissing the
case is Plaintiffs dishonesty. Dismissal without prejudice
will not prohibit Plaintiff from pursuing federal claims
about medical care he received in Tattnall County by filing a
new case in the Statesboro Division of this Court, and if he
so chooses, refiling a new case in the Augusta Division
against Dr. Wells.
with his objections, Plaintiff re-urges a motion for
appointment of counsel, a request the Magistrate Judge
previously denied. (See doc. no. 15.) In denying the
prior request, the Magistrate Judge pointed out that despite
an assertion of unspecified mental health issues, Plaintiff
was able to submit factually-detailed pleadings reviewing
over three years of medical diagnoses and treatment, thus
demonstrating an ability to present his claims to the Court
without an attorney. (Id. at 4.) That ability is
again demonstrated by Plaintiffs objections and renewed
motion for appointed counsel.
because of Plaintiff s dishonesty about his filing history,
the case is due to be dismissed, eliminating any concerns
about discovery and the presentation of evidence. Then, as
now, Plaintiff fails to show exceptional circumstances exist
to justify appointment of counsel. Steele v. Shah,
87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the Court
DENIES the renewed motion for appointment of
counsel. (Doc. no. 19.)
the Court OVERRULES all of Plaintiffs
objections, ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as modified herein, as
its opinion, DISMISSES this case without
prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiffs abuse of the judicial
process, DENIES the motions for a protective
order and appointment of counsel (doc. nos. 14, 19), and
CLOSES this civil action. If Plaintiff
intends to pursue any of the claims ...