Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-41
06-29-2016
EARL JONES, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN STANLEY WILLIAMS, Defendant.
ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, brought this suit contesting certain conditions of his confinement pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons which follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) Additionally, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint, (doc. 1), and CLOSE this case. I also RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint is DIMISSED as moot.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on April 12, 2016, alleging that prison staff failed to prevent an attack on him by another inmate, failed to properly treat his injuries, denied him clothing and hygiene supplies, prevented him from filing grievances, and retaliated against him for attempting to file grievances—as best the Court could discern. (Doc. 1, p. 6.) As Plaintiff's Complaint was largely incomprehensible, the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the Court's Order dated April 22, 2016, and deferred ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7.) On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint in which he asserted a litany of additional claims. (Doc. 8.) On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint to, once again, add additional claims. (Doc. 9.) Having reviewed both Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Complaint, the Court will now address Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis and pursuant to 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. § 1915A(b).
When 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. 2001)).
Whether 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 F. App'x 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)).
In its 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.") (emphasis omitted) (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 without counsel.").
DISCUSSION
I. Dismissal for Abuse of Judicial Process
As noted above, Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. The form Complaint filed by Plaintiff directly asked whether Plaintiff had filed "any lawsuits in federal court which deal with facts other than those involved in this action" and directed Plaintiff to describe any additional lawsuits on a separate piece of paper. (Doc. 1, p. 2.) (emphasis added). Id. The form Complaint further asked: "As to any lawsuit filed in federal court where you were allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, was any suit dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim?" (Id. at p. 3.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff indicated that he had only filed one prior lawsuit while incarcerated or detained, which is currently pending. (Id. at p. 2.) Plaintiff then checked a box marked "no" when asked whether any suit filed by him had been dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at p. 3.) Despite Plaintiff's assertions to the contrary, the case management system shows that Plaintiff brought at least two other lawsuits while he was incarcerated or detained prior to filing this action—one of which was dismissed for failure to state a claim:
• Order, Jones v. Sheriff Al St. Lawrence, et al., 4:09-cv-68, (S.D. Ga. July. 20, 2009), ECF No. 7 (dismissal of Jones' complaint for failure to obey court order);
• Order, Jones v. Barrow, et al., 5:15-cv-18, (M.D. Ga. July 9, 2015), ECF No. 11 (dismissal of Jones' Complaint for failure to state a claim).
As 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 F. App'x 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 226.
Relying 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 F. App'x 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 F. App'x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); Young v. Sec'y Fla. for Dep't of Corr., 380 F. App'x 939, 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App'x 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 F. App'x 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 F. App'x 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 F. App'x at 941 (finding that not having documents concerning prior litigation and not being able to pay for copies of same did not absolve prisoner plaintiff "of the requirement of disclosing, at a minimum, all of the information that was known to him"); Hood, 197 F. App'x at 819 ("The objections were considered, but the district court was correct to conclude that to allow [the plaintiff] to then acknowledge what he should have disclosed earlier would serve to overlook his abuse of the judicial process.").
Another district court in this Circuit explained the importance of an inmate's prior litigation disclosures as follows:
[t]he inquiry concerning a prisoner's prior lawsuits is not a matter of idle curiosity, nor is it an effort to raise meaningless obstacles to a prisoner's access to the courts. Rather, the existence of prior litigation initiated by a prisoner is required in order for the Court to apply 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (the "three strikes rule" applicable to prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis). Additionally, it has been the Court's experience that a significant number of prisoner filings raise claims or issues that have already been decided adversely to the prisoner in prior litigation. . . . Identification of prior litigation frequently enables the Court to dispose of successive cases without further expenditure of finite judicial resources.Brown v. Saintavil, No. 2:14-CV-599-FTM-29, 2014 WL 5780180, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2014) (emphasis omitted).
As Plaintiff filed at least two prior lawsuits while detained—one of which was dismissed for failure to state a claim—he falsified his litigation history in his Complaint. The plain language of the complaint form is clear—first asking Plaintiff whether he has ever filed any lawsuit dealing with the same facts involved in this action, (doc. 1, p. 1), then asking whether Plaintiff, while incarcerated or detained, has filed any lawsuit in federal court which dealt with facts other than those involved in this action, (id. at p. 2), and finally asking Plaintiff whether any suit filed by him has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, (id. at p. 3.) (emphasis added). Regardless of the outcome of Plaintiff's prior lawsuits, his initiations of those lawsuits are the precise type of activity for which these prompts require disclosure.
Plaintiff failed to fully disclose the existence and disposition of his prior lawsuits, and his blatant dishonesty before this Court and disregard of his duty of candor cannot be excused. Consequently, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis for failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history. Additionally, the Court should DISMISS this action for Plaintiff's failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history as required. II. Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
The Court should also deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Plaintiff has, of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address these issues in the Court's order of dismissal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal is not take in good faith "before or after the notice of appeal is filed").
A certificate of appealability is not required in this Section 1983 action.
An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. Cty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Or, stated another way, an in forma pauperis action is frivolous and, thus, not brought in good faith, if it is "without arguable merit either in law or fact." Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Brown v. United States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009).
Based on the above analysis of Plaintiff's action, there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court should DENY in forma pauperis status on appeal.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. Additionally, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and CLOSE this case. I also RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint is DIMISSED as moot.
The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address any contention raised in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be served upon all other parties to the action. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.
Upon receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 29th day of June, 2016.
/s/_________
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA