United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES J. KAHN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the court on the filing of plaintiff's
complaint. (Doc. 1). Upon review of the complaint, the
undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed as
malicious for plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process.
is currently confined at the Escambia County Jail in
Pensacola, Florida. The complaint names 2 defendants:
“Rosschilds C.E.O.” and “Elisebeth Smith
Magistrate.” Plaintiff claims that, in 1992, his
grandfather died and left plaintiff $17 billion in an escrow
account. In 2013 “Chief Magistrate Elisebeth Smith in
the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ordered
[plaintiff's] inheritance in its entirety to be placed in
an account within the ‘U.S. World
Bank.'” Plaintiff complains “the Bank will
not respect [his] request for transfer of [his] funds”
and Judge Smith has refused to order the Bank to transfer
funds to plaintiff's Escambia County Jail inmate account.
in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
requires the court to dismiss this case if satisfied that the
action is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On page 4 of
the civil rights complaint form, Section IV(D), Previous
Lawsuits, is the following question: “Have you ever had
any actions in federal court dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, failing to state a claim, or prior to
service?” (Doc. 1, p. 4) (emphasis added). Where
there are parenthetical areas to mark either a
“Yes” or “No” answer to Question (D),
plaintiff marked “No.” (Id.). At the end
of the complaint, plaintiff signed his name after the
following statement: “I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS OF FACT, INCLUDING ALL
CONTINUATION PAGES, ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.”
(Id., p. 7). Thus, plaintiff has in effect stated
that at the time he filed the complaint, he had not had any
federal cases dismissed before service. Plaintiff's
complaint was signed and submitted to prison officials for
mailing on January 11, 2017. (Id.).
matter of course, the court attempts to make an independent
investigation into whether or not litigants truthfully
complete the complaint forms, especially when a lack of
candor in informing the court of prior lawsuits may affect
the court's jurisdiction. In light of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g),  the court must necessarily investigate the
prior filings of a prisoner to enforce the so-called
“three strikes” provision. The time spent
verifying the cases a plaintiff has filed but failed to
identify, as well as the claims raised in those cases and
their disposition, can be considerable.
court may take judicial notice that at the time plaintiff
filed his complaint in this case, he had initiated at least 1
other action that required disclosure: Grice v.
Ghigliotty, No. 3:15cv411-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla. Feb. 12,
2016), a civil rights action dismissed before service due to
plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court.
The case may be positively identified as having been filed by
plaintiff because it bears his Escambia County inmate number,
99857300. Plaintiff did not identify this prior federal
action despite the complaint form's clear instructions.
(Doc. 1, p. 4).
court has the authority to control and manage matters such as
this pending before it, and plaintiff's pro se
status does not excuse him from conforming to acceptable
standards in approaching the court. If the court cannot rely
on the statements or responses made by the parties, it
threatens the quality of justice. The court will not tolerate
false responses or statements in any pleading or motion filed
before it. Here, plaintiff falsely responded to questions on
the complaint form, as detailed above. Plaintiff knew from
reading the complaint form that disclosure of all prior civil
cases was required. The complaint form expressly warns
prisoners: “FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL PRIOR CIVIL CASES
MAY RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE. IF YOU ARE UNSURE
OF ANY PRIOR CASES YOU HAVE FILED, THAT FACT MUST BE
DISCLOSED AS WELL.” (Doc. 1, p. 3). If plaintiff suffered
no penalty for his untruthful responses, there would be
little or no disincentive for his attempt to evade or
undermine the purpose of the form. The court should not allow
plaintiff's false responses to go unpunished. An
appropriate sanction for plaintiff's abuse of the
judicial process in not providing the court with true factual
statements or responses is to dismiss this case without
prejudice. See Bratton v. Secretary, No.
2:10cv517-FtM-29DNF, 2012 WL 2913171 (M.D. Fla. July 16,
2012) (dismissing case without prejudice where prisoner
failed to disclose one prior federal case that was dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Johnson v.
Crawson, 5:08cv300/RS/EMT, 2010 WL 1380247 (N.D. Fla.
Mar. 3, 2010) (dismissing case without prejudice where
prisoner failed to disclose one prior federal case).
it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as malicious for
plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process.
2. That all pending motions be DENIED AS MOOT.
3. That the clerk be directed to close the file.
Pensacola, Florida, this 17th day of March, 2017.
TO THE PARTIES
to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed
within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof.
Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not
control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the
Magistrate Judge and all other parties. A party failing to
object to a Magistrate Judge's findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
waives the right to challenge on ...