United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THAI CANNON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Edward Tyrone Ridley, filed an amended civil rights
complaint, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ECF Doc. 1, and a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Doc. 2. The
matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for
preliminary screening and a report and recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
72.2(B). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned
recommends the complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) because Ridley has, on three or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an
action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and
Ridley is not under imminent danger of serious physical
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner from proceeding
in forma pauperis under certain
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
prisoner who is barred from proceeding in forma
pauperis must pay the filing fee at the time he
initiates his lawsuit, and his failure to do so warrants
dismissal of his case without prejudice. See Dupree v.
Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002)
(holding that “the proper procedure is for the district
court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it
denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to the provisions of §
1915(g)” because the prisoner “must pay the
filing fee at the time he initiates the suit”);
Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324
(11th Cir. 2001) (stating that after three
meritless suits, a prisoner must pay the full filing fee at
the time he initiates suit). The only exception is if the
prisoner alleges that he is “under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
see also Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344
(11th Cir. 2004).
has been deemed a three-striker since 2007, at the latest.
For example, in Ridley v. Donald et al., 1:07-cv-177
(M.D. Ga 2007), the Middle District of Georgia found as
A review of court records reveals plaintiff has a prolific
filing history. Specifically, he has filed approximately
twenty-two (22) civil rights or habeas corpus actions with
the federal courts while incarcerated. At present, at least
three (3) of these complaints or appeals have been dismissed
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915: Ridley v.
Rhines, 4:97-CV-301-RH (N.D. Fla Feb. 24, 1998);
Ridley v. King, l:96-CV-231 (WLS)(M. D. Ga. Jan. 2,
1997)); and Ridley v. Pridgen, 5:96-CV-438 (WLS) (M.
D. Ga. Nov. 25, 1996).
Id. at 2. Recently, in Ridley v. Warren,
1:19-cv-4664 (N.D.Ga. 2019), the Northern District of Georgia
held as follows:
Court records reflect that Plaintiff has filed numerous civil
actions while he was a prisoner, at least three of which were
dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
See Ridley v. King, Civil Action No. 1:96-CV-231-WLS
(M.D. Ga. Jan. 2, 1997) (dismissed as frivolous); Ridley
v. Pridgen, Civil Action No. 5:96-CV-438-WDO (M.D. Ga.
Nov. 25, 1996) (dismissed as frivolous); Ridley v.
Brown, Civil Action No. 1:96-CV-2967-RWS (N.D.Ga. June
23, 1997) (dismissing under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)).
Plaintiff has three strikes, he may not litigate this case
in forma pauperis unless he demonstrates he is
“under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Brown,
supra. The allegations in the complaint ECF Doc. 1 do
not make that showing as they concern whether Ridley was
properly placed on the sex offender registry. Therefore, this
case should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236
(11th Cir. 2002).
additional basis for dismissal is that Ridley falsely stated
his prior litigation history in Section VIII of the civil
rights complaint form he filed with the Court. The 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, is proper. Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719,
731 (11th Cir. 1998), abrogated in part on different
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). On the
complaint form filed by Ridley, he was asked, “To the
best of your knowledge, have you had any case dismissed for a
reason listed in § 1915(g) which counts as a
‘strike'?” ECF Doc. 1 at 12. Petitioner
identified only a single Northern District of Florida case,
5:16-cv-192-MP-GRJ. As noted above, however, Ridley not only
had many cases dismissed as strikes, at least two previous
courts have told him he had three or more strikes. Thus,
Ridley knowingly gave a false answer to the question, despite
certifying in Section IX “under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing (including all continuation pages) is true and
correct.” ECF Doc. 1 at 14-15. This case is therefore
subject to dismissal for abuse of the judicial process.
Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 491 Fed.Appx.
129, 132 (11th Cir. 2012).
it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis