The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
. MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA .
OCALA DIVISION
VANTICE LEE BESHEARS, JR. ,
Plaintiff,
ve . Case No: 5:19-cv-329-Oc-02PRL
MARION COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
WILLIAM WOOD, WILLIAM
ARIAS, JUSTIN BROWN, |
RODNEY WOODSON,
JOHN/JANE DOE, CITY OF
OCALA, OCALA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, N CABRERA,
FNU KERN, TIMOTHY GRIMES
and KENNETH STARLING,
Defendants. —
ORDER DISMISSING CASE □
Plaintiff, 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. (Doc. 10).
Plaintiff executed the civil rights complaint form under the penalty of perjury.
(Doc. | 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.
The 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 F. App’x 221, 225 (11th Cir. 2011).' In Redmon, the
' Pursuant to 11" Cir. Rule 36-2, unpublished opinions are not binding precedent but
may be cited as persuasive authority.
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 plaintiff's
explanation did not excuse his misrepresentation because the complaint form “clearly
asked Plaintiff to disclose previously filed lawsuits[.]” Jd. 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. I1(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 (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 F. App'x 647, 648 (11th Cir. 2018) (finding that “the district court was
entitled to dismiss [plaintiff's] 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)
In his 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 Plaintiff's 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 Complaint. Id.
Accordingly, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
. lor
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on September “~, 2019.
Aes F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Counsel of Record
Petitioner, pro se
“Tt appears that Plaintiff already has one “strike”: Beshears v. Merrit, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-
2152-HAB-DGB (C.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2011) (dismissing for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)).