United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL J. FRANK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Robert Easley, a prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, has filed a third amended civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 34), and a
motion for permanent injunction. (Doc. 37). The undersigned
recommends that this case be dismissed as malicious, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1),
for Easley's abuse of the judicial process in failing to
completely and honestly disclose his prior litigation
DC#L11027, is an inmate of the Florida Department of
Corrections (FDC) confined at the Northwest Florida Reception
Center (NWFRC) in Chipley, Florida. Easley initiated this
case on June 18, 2018, by filing a “Motion for
Permanent/Temporary Injunction; Temporary Restraining Order;
Memorandum of Law; and Request for Evidentiary
Hearing.” (Doc. 1). The court struck the filing and
ordered Easley to file a complaint on the Northern District
of Florida's civil rights complaint form for use by
prisoners. (Doc. 4). Easley eventually complied (Doc. 13),
and has amended his complaint three times. (Docs. 27, 29,
34). Easley's third amended complaint is the operative
pleading. (Doc. 34).
third amended complaint names two Defendants: FDC Secretary
Mark S. Inch and NWFRC Nurse Mary Pliskin. (Doc. 34, pp. 1-2
in ECF). Easley claims they violated his rights under the
Civil Rights Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12131-12134; and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. § 794, when they
denied him therapeutic soft shoes to accommodate his foot and
back pain, diabetes, and neuropathy. (Doc. 34, pp. 6-11 in
ECF). As relief, Easley seeks a total of $775, 000.00 in
damages, as well as injunctive relief (the provision of
various accommodations and medical passes). (Id., p.
12 in ECF). Easley's motion for a permanent injunction
seeks to compel the FDC to provide him soft shoes, an ADA
bed, an ADA locker, a back brace, button-up shirts, pain
medications, muscle relaxers, epidural shots, physical
therapy, and the following medical passes: front door access
to the chow hall, front cuff, no prolonged sitting, and no
recreation. (Doc. 37).
Screening for Maliciousness
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), Pub. L. No.
104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), was enacted in “an
effort to stem the flood of prisoner lawsuits in federal
court.” Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 972
(11th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see Procup v.
Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1071 (11th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam) (“Recent years have witnessed an explosion of
prisoner litigation in the federal courts.”). Under the
PLRA, a federal court is required to screen a prisoner
complaint to determine whether the action is frivolous,
malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (screening provision of in forma
complaint form requires a plaintiff to list his litigation
history, and the plaintiff's statements are made under
penalty of perjury, a plaintiff's affirmative
misrepresentation regarding his prior litigation history
constitutes abuse of the judicial process warranting
dismissal of the case as “malicious.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and §
1915A(b)(1); Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731
(11th Cir. 1998) (holding that dismissal of an action without
prejudice as a sanction for a pro se prisoner's
failure to disclose the existence of a prior lawsuit, where
that prisoner was under penalty of perjury, was proper),
abrogated in part on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007); see also, e.g.,
Sears v. Haas, 509 Fed.Appx. 935, 935-36 (11th Cir.
2013) (holding that dismissal of prisoner-plaintiff's
case for abuse of the judicial process under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) was warranted where the prisoner failed to
disclose cases he previously filed); Harris v.
Warden, 498 Fed.Appx. 962, 964-65 (11th Cir. 2012)
(same); Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 491
Fed.Appx. 129, 132-33 (11th Cir. 2012) (same).
of his complaints, Easley provided answers to Section IV of
this court's civil rights complaint form, which requires
him to disclose his litigation history. (Doc. 34 at 3). On
page three of the civil rights complaint form, Section IV(B),
Previous Lawsuits, is the following question: “Have you
initiated other actions in federal court
dealing with the same or similar facts/issues involved in
this action?” (Doc. 34, p. 3 in ECF). Where there are
parenthetical areas to mark either a “Yes” or
“No” answer to Question (B), Easley marked
“Yes”, and disclosed one case:
(1) Easley v. Dep't of Corr., Case No.
1:11cv23547 - a civil rights action Easley filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (“Southern District”) in 2011 for medical
deliberate indifference - an action Easley “lost in
summary judgment stage” in 2014.
(Doc. 34, p. 3 in ECF).
four of the civil rights complaint form, Section IV(C),
Previous Lawsuits, is the following question: “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)?” (Doc.
34, p. 4 in ECF) (footnote added). Where ...