Jones v. White

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/7/2016. (AVC)

FILED
2016 Jul-07 PM 04:03
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN WHITE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01829-RDP-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge entered a report on May 20, 2016, recommending this
action be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (Doc. 18). The report and
recommendation advised Plaintiff of his right to submit specific written objections
within fourteen days. (Id.).
On June 1, 2016, the court received an untitled document which appeared to
constitute Plaintiff’s response to the report and recommendation, but which was
unsigned, in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc.
19). Accordingly, on June 3, 2016, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to submit
a signed copy of the document within fourteen days. (Doc. 20). The order advised
Plaintiff that failure to comply would lead to the pleading being stricken. (Id.).

Plaintiff failed to comply with the magistrate judge's order to submit signed
objections, but instead filed a pleading which the Clerk docketed as a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal. (Doc. 21). 1 Although Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff
to voluntarily dismiss an action at any time prior to an opposing party’s service of
an answer or motion for summary judgment, the rule also provides that voluntary
dismissal is subject to “any applicable federal statute.” Here, because Plaintiff is a
prisoner, this action is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which
includes a provision known informally as the three strikes rule. That rule provides:
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 2
In this instance, Plaintiff submitted the notice after the magistrate judge
conducted the pre-screening process pursuant to § 1915A and recommended
dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim. Under such circumstances,

1

In the document, Plaintiff asks if he can “just drop the charges.” (Doc. 21). However, the
document, while unclear, also seems to indicate that Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this matter.
2

The Supreme Court has recognized that this and other provisions of the PLRA were enacted by
Congress to “discourage prisoners from filing claims that are unlikely to succeed.” Crawford-El
v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 596-97 (1998).
2

courts have recognized that a prisoner may not circumvent the three strikes rule by
moving to voluntarily dismiss an action after receiving an unfavorable report and
recommendation. See Franklin v. Scott, 2012 WL 4742814, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Oct.
4, 2012) (“[The] plaintiff endeavors to interrupt the PLRA-mandated screening
process prior to accruing a strike for filing a legally insufficient complaint, thereby
circumventing § 1915(g)’s three strikes provision. . . . [T]he PLRA does not
permit this type of gamesmanship.”). Accordingly, “allowing a prisoner to
voluntarily dismiss a complaint … after screening has been completed [would]
allow prisoners to frustrate Congress’s intent behind enacting the PLRA.” Leigh v.
Doe #1, 2016 WL 146226, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 2016) (quoting Stone v. Smith,
2009 WL 368620, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2009)). Therefore, to the extent
Plaintiff’s notice (Doc. 21) can be construed as a motion to dismiss this action
voluntarily pursuant to Rule 41(a), the motion is DENIED.
Turning to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
undersigned has carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation.3 Based on this review, the
magistrate judge’s report is ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), this action is due to be

3

Plaintiff’s unsigned response (Doc. 19) is STRICKEN pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
3

dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this July 7, 2016.

_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4