Opinion

Lagrandeur v. Brown

Court
District Court, M.D. Florida
Filed
Dec 16, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 33.3%

dismissals for failure to prosecute and abuse of the judicial process are considered strikes

How later courts described this case

  • dismissals for failure to prosecute and abuse of the judicial process are considered strikes
  • prisoner's failure to disclose a prior lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial process

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

JEFFREY LAGRANDEUR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-684-SPC-NPM

BROWN, VALESQUEZ,

LANZETTA, MS. PAT,

MATHEWSON, HERCHY and MS.

THOMPSON,

Defendants.

/

OPINION AND ORDER

Jeffrey Lagrandeur is a Florida state prisoner, and he sues seven state

officials. Before ruling on Lagrandeur’s pending motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, Magistrate Judge Nicholas Mizell learned Lagrandeur

misrepresented his litigation history by omitting eight lawsuits from the

relevant section of his Complaint. Judge Mizell ordered Lagrandeur to show

cause why this action should not be dismissed for abuse of the judicial process.

Lagrandeur did not respond.

Based on the facts set out in Judge Mizell’s Order to Show Cause (Doc.

8) and Lagrandeur’s failure to respond to that order, the Court finds

Lagrandeur abused the judicial process by misrepresenting his litigation

history and thereby avoiding potential dismissal under the three-strikes rule

set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Allen v. Clark, 266 F. App’x 815, 817 (11th

Cir 2008) (dismissals for failure to prosecute and abuse of the judicial process

are considered strikes). The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly found dismissal

appropriate when a prisoner misrepresents his litigation history. See Redmon

v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 414 F. App’x 221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (prisoner's

failure to disclose a prior lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial process); Shelton

v. Rohrs, 406 F. App’x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); and Hood v. Tompkins,

197 F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (same). The Court will thus dismiss this

action without prejudice. Lagrandeur may file a new action, but he must either

pay the filing fee or establish an exception to the three-strike rule.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is

DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment

of dismissal without prejudice, and close this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 16, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.