United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
TIMOTHY L. GADSON, SR., Plaintiff,
JULIE JONES, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
an inmate serving a sentence in the custody of the Florida
Department of Corrections, initiated this case by filing ECF
No. 1, a pro se civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and ECF No. 2, a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. These filings were deficient, so
the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.)
Plaintiff then filed ECF No. 7, another motion for leave to
proceed as a pauper, and ECF No. 8, an amended complaint.
with the Court's screening obligation under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court screened the filings and identified a
number of deficiencies. For starters, Plaintiff's motion
to proceed in forma pauperis lacked the requisite
completed Prisoner Consent Form and Financial Certificate and
printout of all transactions in his prison account for the
proper six-month period. (ECF No. 10.)
Court did not require Plaintiff to correct the aforementioned
deficiencies because Plaintiff failed to fully disclose
information regarding previous lawsuits. Plaintiff executed
the complaint under penalty of perjury. (ECF No. 8 at 7.) The
Court's civil rights complaint form requires prisoners to
disclose information regarding previous lawsuits.
(Id. at 8-9.) Prisoners are required to disclose
whether they have initiated actions in state or federal court
“with the same or similar facts/issues involved in this
action, ” or “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.) Further, they must identify any federal court
actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, failing
to state a claim, or prior to service. (Id.)
amended complaint, Plaintiff identified two state court cases
and one federal habeas corpus case. A review of the
Court's PACER Case Locator reflects, however, that
Plaintiff has filed at least two additional actions in
federal district court while incarcerated. See Gadson v.
Fla. Dep't of Corr. Sec'y, No.
5:08-cv-107-RS-MD, ECF Nos. 15-16 (N.D. Fla. July 3, 2008)
(dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii));
Gadson v, Gerber, No. 9:18-cv-80209-DMM, ECF No. 1
(S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2018) (Plaintiff's § 1983
complaint seeking compensation for time in prison based on
absence of any basis for excusing a plaintiff's lack of
candor, failure to disclose and truthfully describe previous
lawsuits as clearly required on the Court's prisoner
civil rights complaint form warrants dismissal of the
complaint for abuse of the judicial process. See Redmon
v. Lake Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. 10-11070, 2011 WL
576601, at *4 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011). In
Redmon, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of a prisoner's civil rights complaint that did not
disclose a previous lawsuit. The plaintiff argued that he
“misunderstood” the form, but the Eleventh
Circuit held that the district court had the discretion to
conclude that the plaintiff's explanation did not excuse
his misrepresentation because the complaint form
“clearly asked Plaintiff to disclose previously filed
lawsuits . . . .” Id. The Eleventh Circuit
determined that dismissal was an appropriate sanction:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “[a] finding that the
plaintiff engaged in bad faith litigiousness or manipulative
tactics warrants dismissal.” Attwood v.
Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997). In
addition, a district court may impose sanctions if a party
knowingly files a pleading that contains false contentions.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c). Although pro se pleadings are
held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys, a plaintiff's pro se status will not
excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1984,
124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993).
addition to revealing whether a prisoner is subject to the
PLRA's “three strikes” provision, the
information required on the form assists the Court in
efficiently managing prisoner litigation by showing whether a
complaint is related to or is affected by another case. The
failure to exercise candor in completing the form, while
acknowledging that the answers are made under penalty of
perjury, impedes the Court in managing its caseload and
merits the sanction of dismissal. See Redmon, 2011
WL 576601, at *4; Johnson v. Crawson, No.
5:08-cv-300, 2010 WL 1380247, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2010)
(“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.
Furthermore, if word spread around the prisons that the
questions on the complaint form could be circumvented in such
a manner, the court might be confronted with widespread abuse
from its many prisoner litigants.”); Paulcin v.
McNeil, No. 3:09-cv-151, 2009 WL 2432684, at *2 (N.D.
Fla. Aug. 6, 2009) (“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
Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before
May 18, 2018, as to why this case should not be dismissed for
abuse of the judicial process. (ECF No. 10.) As of the date
of this report and recommendation, Plaintiff has not
responded and the time for doing so has expired.
district court has inherent power to control its docket,
which includes dismissing a case. Quality Foods de Centro
Am., S.A. v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A.,
711 F.2d 989, 998 (11th Cir. 1983). The Court may dismiss a
claim if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or comply with a
court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). “The power to invoke
this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays
in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion
in the calendars of the District Court.” Durham v.
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 385 F.2d 366, 367 (5th Cir.
a clear directive to show cause by May 18, 2018, Plaintiff
has failed to comply. Plaintiff has provided no explanation
for his lack of candor. Furthermore, upon review of the
instant complaint the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be
prejudiced by the imposition of dismissal as a sanction.
undersigned therefore concludes that dismissal of this case
without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order
and as malicious for abuse of the judicial process is an
appropriate sanction for Plaintiff's lack of candor. The
dismissal of this case as malicious for abuse of the judicial
process should operate as a “strike” pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
for the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully
RECOMMENDED that this case should be
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
comply with a Court order and as malicious for ...