United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WILLLIAM F. JUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a pre-trial detainee at the Marion County Jail, initiated
this case by filing a pro se civil rights Complaint and a
motion for leave to proceed as a pauper. (Docs. 1 and 2). On
August 16, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed for abuse of the
judicial process because Plaintiff failed to truthfully
disclose all of his prior federal cases, as required on the
complaint form. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff has filed a response.
executed the civil rights complaint form under the penalty of
perjury. (Doc. 1 at 9). That form requires prisoners to
disclose information regarding previous lawsuits initiated by
them. Specifically, it required Plaintiff to disclose whether
he had "initiated lawsuits or appeals from lawsuits in
federal court that have been dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted," and to disclose all other lawsuits he
filed in state or federal court dealing with the same facts
involved in this action, and other lawsuits he filed relating
to the conditions of his imprisonment. It also required
Plaintiff to disclose information about each lawsuit filed.
Plaintiff failed to identify any lawsuits.
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 that prior litigation
frequently enables the Court to dispose of the successive
case without further expenditure of finite judicial
resources. In the absence of any basis for excusing a
plaintiffs 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 County Sheriffs Office, 414
Fed.Appx. 221, 225 (11th Cir. 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 Court held that
the district court had the discretion to conclude that the
plaintiffs explanation did not excuse his misrepresentation
because the complaint form "clearly asked Plaintiff to
disclose previously filed lawsuits[.]" Id. The
Court 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 plaintiffs pro se status will not
excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
Id. The failure to exercise candor in completing the
form impedes the Court in managing its caseload and merits
the sanction of dismissal. See id.; Jenkins v.
Hutcheson, 708 Fed.Appx. 647, 648 (11th Cir. 2018)
(finding that "the district court was entitled to
dismiss [plaintiffs] complaint based on his failure to fully
disclose his litigation history," and noting that the
district court reasoned that requiring prisoners to disclose
prior lawsuits is important to enable courts to apply the
"three strike rule" and dispose of successive cases
that relitigate old matters)
response to the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 10), Plaintiff
states that he missed the section requiring disclosure of
previous cases, had no memory of his previous cases due to
memory loss, and that he "did not and has never provided
false information to this Court and did not willingly fail to
disclose and information that was required." That is not
a credible response. Plaintiff has failed to truthfully
disclose his prior cases as required by the plain language
instructions of the form and has failed to come forward with
any persuasive reason to excuse his lack of candor. The Court
finds that Plaintiffs failure to fully disclose his previous
lawsuits, under penalty of perjury, constitutes an abuse of
the judicial process. See Rivera v. Allin. 144 F.3d
719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998). An appropriate sanction for such
abuse of the judicial process is the dismissal of the
this case is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice. Such dismissal counts as a
"strike" for the purposes of the three-strikes
provision of the PLRA, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment
dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending
motions, and close the file.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Pursuant to 11th Cir. Rule
36-2, unpublished opinions are not binding precedent but may
be cited as persuasive authority.
 It appears that Plaintiff already has
one "strike": Beshears v. Merrit, et al,
Case No. 2:10-cv-2152-HAB-DGB (CD. III. Jan. 24, 2011)
(dismissing for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted ...