Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Whitlow v. Suggs

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

October 19, 2017

WILLIAM ALLEN WHITLOW, Inmate No. 513215, Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT SUGGS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This cause is before the court on Plaintiff's civil rights complaint filed on September 25, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1), and a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). For the limited purposes of this Report and Recommendation, leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

         Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, the court is required to dismiss the complaint if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Upon review of the complaint, the court finds this case should be dismissed as malicious.

         Section IV of the complaint form requires Plaintiff to disclose information regarding prior civil cases he filed in state and federal court (ECF No. 1 at 3-4). In Question A of Section IV, which requests information regarding any previous cases Plaintiff might have filed in state court that deal with the same or similar facts as those in the instant action, Plaintiff provided a somewhat unintelligible answer that indicates he is unable to provide information regarding his previous cases (id. at 3). Question B of Section IV asks: “Have you initiated other actions in federal court dealing with the same or similar facts/issues involved in this action?” Plaintiff wrote the answer “this one also” in response to the question (id.). Question C of Section IV asks, “Have you initiated other actions (besides those listed above in Questions (A) and (B)) in either state or federal court that relate to the fact or manner of your incarceration (including habeas corpus petitions) or the conditions of your confinement (including civil rights complaints about any aspect of prison life, whether it be general circumstances or a particular episode, and whether it involved excessive force or some other wrong)?” (id. at 4). Plaintiff provided the answer “antinym” to this question. Question D asks, “Have you ever had any actions in federal court dismissed as frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim, or prior to service?” Plaintiff provided the answer “Fudrucers bunch” (id. at 4).

         At the end of the civil rights complaint form, Plaintiff signed his name after the following statement on the form: “I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS OF FACT, INCLUDING ALL CONTINUATION PAGES, ARE TRUE AND CORRECT” (ECF No. 1 at 13).

         As routinely recognized by this court, the information from Section IV of the form is useful to the court in many ways:

. . . it allows efficient consideration of whether the prisoner is entitled to pursue the current action under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act; it allows consideration of whether the action is related to, or otherwise should be considered in conjunction with or by the same judge who presided over, another action; it allows consideration of whether any ruling in the other action affects the prisoner's current case. All of these things are appropriately considered in connection with the preliminary review of such a complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Spires v. Taylor, Order of Dismissal, Case No. 3:00cv249-RH (N.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2000). Further, because prisoner plaintiffs generally proceed pro se, the information helps the court determine their litigation experience and familiarity with the legal terrain of the current action. The time spent verifying the cases a plaintiff has filed but failed to identify, as well as the dispositions of those cases, can be considerable.[1]

         Upon review of the docket, this court takes judicial notice of a case previously filed by Plaintiff in this court, Whitlow v. Oliver, Case No. 5:17cv23/MCR/CJK. In dismissing that case, the court noted the following previously-filed cases concerning the conditions of Plaintiff's confinement at various institutions within the Florida Department of Corrections:

Whitlow v. Rummel, Case No. 3:16cv470/LAC/EMT, dismissed as malicious on October 27, 2016;
Whitlow v. Coker, Case No. 3:16cv471/RV/CJK, dismissed prior to service, on December 19, 2016, for plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court;
Whitlow v. Samples, Case No. 5:16cv263/MMP/GRJ, dismissed prior to service, on December 21, 2016, for plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court;
Whitlow v. Coker, Case No. 3:16cv510/MCR/CJK, dismissed prior to service on February 3, 2017, for plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court; Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 726 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g)), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).
• Whitlow v. Samples, Case No. 5:16cv347/WTH/GRJ, dismissed as malicious on ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.