Bratton v. Secretary, DOC et al
Filing
118
OPINION AND ORDER granting 59 Motion to dismiss to the extent that the case is dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process and the motion is otherwise denied as moot. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, provide plaintiff with a blank civil rights complaint form with this Opinion and Order, terminate any pending motions, and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/16/2012. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDMOND EARL BRATTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.
2:10-cv-517-FtM-29DNF
SECRETARY, DOC, R. TOMLINSON,
Warden,
Charlotte
C.I.,
S.
LEKAWA, Sergeant, Charlotte C.I.,
Defendants.
________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Amended1
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #59, Motion).
Defendants seek to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #1, Complaint) on the basis that
Plaintiff failed to disclose a prior federal civil rights action
that was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) on his
complaint form; or, in the alternative, that the Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim for relief against Defendants the Secretary
of the Florida Department of Corrections and Warden Tomlinson.
Motion at 6, 11. Additionally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s
1
After filing his Complaint, a discrepancy between the docketed
copy of the Complaint and service copies of the Complaint came to
light. In particular, it appears that the executed signature page
was missing from Plaintiff’s docketed Complaint (Doc. #1). See
Defendants’ Motion For Leave to Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #38) and Motion To Amend (Doc.
#40). It appears that, during the scanning and docketing of the
Complaint, the executed signature page was inadvertently omitted.
Consequently, the Court directed the Clerk to correct the
deficiency, but required Defendant to file an amended motion
because the original motion included the absence of a signature
page as a basis for relief. See October 6, 2011 Order (Doc. #55).
claims for monetary damages against each of the Defendants in their
individual capacities must be dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(e).
Id. at 15.
Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’
Motion (Doc. #65, Response). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion
to Amend his Complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint
(Doc. #74).
Defendants oppose the filing of the Amended Complaint
on the grounds that the proposed amendments are an effort in
futility.
part,
As more fully set forth infra, the Court will grant, in
Defendants’
Amended
Motion
to
Dismiss
and
will
deny
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as moot.
Dismissal as Sanction
Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint as a sanction for
Plaintiff’s alleged abuse of the judicial process.
Motion at 6.
In particular, Defendants point out that Plaintiff “knowingly,
under the penalties of perjury” failed to accurately respond to
Section IV, subsections B and D of the civil rights complaint
form.2
Defendants submit that Plaintiff had previously filed a
case in federal court concerning the conditions of his confinement,
which had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to
state a claim.
In support Defendants identify Edmond Bratton v.
2
Section IV, subsection B asks whether Plaintiff had ever
initiated other lawsuits in federal court . . . or otherwise
relating to his imprisonment or conditions thereof, to which
Plaintiff checked “no.” Plaintiff failed to answer the question in
Section IV, subsection D, which asked whether he had filed any
federal court claims which were dismissed as frivolous, malicious,
or for failure to state a claim. See Complaint at 5-6.
-2-
Fulton County Jail, et al., 1:97-cv-02523-WBH (N.D. Ga.), which was
filed in
the
Northern
District
of
Georgia and
was dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) on November 4, 1997 by the
Honorable
Willis
B.
Hunt
(hereinafter
the
“Georgia
case”).
Plaintiff neither denies that he filed the Georgia case nor that he
failed to disclose the Georgia case to this Court on his Complaint.
Response at 1-2, ¶2.
Instead, Plaintiff argues that the Georgia
case does “not have anything [to] do with the State of Florida.”
Id.
The Court may dismiss the case at anytime, if the Court
determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, the action is
frivolous or malicious, the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or the complaint seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Further “[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)(citations
omitted).
Additionally, the Court may impose sanctions, including
dismissal of an action, “if a party knowingly files a pleading that
contains false contentions.”
Redmond v. Lake County Sheriff’s
Office, 414 F. App’x 221, 225 (11th Cir. 2011)(citing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11(c)); see also Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir.
1998)(abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199
(2007))(affirming dismissal of action where litigant lied under
-3-
penalty of perjury about the existence of other lawsuit as abuse of
judicial process, finding that “[a]lthough the district court may
not have uttered the words ‘frivolous’ or ‘malicious,’ dismissal
for abuse of judicial process [was] precisely the type of strike
that Congress envisioned when drafting section 1915(g).”).
The Court is cognizant that the Georgia case was dismissed
almost 15 years ago.
Plaintiff, however, does not claim that he
did not remember the case.
Rather, Plaintiff surmises that the
Georgia case is not relevant to the instant case and need not be
disclosed, despite the instructions on the complaint form.
The
directions
on
nor
ambiguous.
The directions do not require a litigant to determine
the
complaint
form
are
neither
confusing
relevance, especially a pro se litigant with little legal acumen.
Clearly a litigant’s lack of candor on the complaint form warrants
dismissal of an action.
Redmond, 414 F. App’x 225.
Here, Plaintiff provides no basis for this Court to excuse his
lack of candor.
See generally Response.
complaint form “under penalty of perjury.”
Plaintiff signed his
Complaint at 12.
By
failing to disclose the Georgia case, Plaintiff violated his
declaration that the answers provided within the complaint form
were “true and correct.”
Complaint at 12.
Indeed, ¶ 3 of the
“Instructions for Filing a Civil Rights Complaint By Prisoners
Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983” specifically warn a
plaintiff that:
-4-
SPECIAL NOTE: Any false statement of material fact may
serve as the basis for prosecution and conviction of
perjury and may result in your Complaint being dismissed
with prejudice.
The Court recognizes that integrity in pleadings are necessary to
promote
judicial
economy.
The
Court
could
potentially
face
“widespread abuse from its many prisoner litigants” if it failed to
impose sanctions against a litigant who lacks veracity in his
pleading. Johnson v. Crawson, Case Number 5:08-cv-300-RS-EMT, 2010
WL 1380247, *2 (N.D. Fla. 2010).
Consequently, the Court finds
that an appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial
process is dismissal, without prejudice.
Because the Court is
dismissing the entire case as a sanction, the Court need not
address Defendants remaining arguments for dismissal.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
After filing a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
Plaintiff sought permission to amend his Complaint (Doc. #74).
Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to clarify the damages he is
seeking,
liability
and
to
against
clarify
the
Defendant,
Department of Corrections.3
facts
the
upon
which
Secretary
of
he
attributes
the
Florida
Because the Court finds that the
3
Plaintiff did not seek to amend his Complaint to cure his lack
of candor.
Nonetheless, the Court would not have permitted an
amendment on this basis. Brown v. Strength, No. CV 107-111, 2008
WL 319440, *2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2008)(noting that “allowing
Plaintiff to amend his complaint to include [his prior] cases . .
. at this time would circumvent the Court's ability to manage its
docket by imposing sanctions for providing false information about
(continued...)
-5-
instant case is subject to dismissal for Plaintiff’s abuse of the
judicial process, the instant Motion to Amend is moot.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #59) is
GRANTED to the extent that the Court will dismiss this case without
prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial
process.
2.
The Motion is otherwise DENIED as moot.
The
Clerk
shall
enter
judgment
accordingly;
provide
Plaintiff with a blank civil rights complaint form with this
Opinion and Order for his use should he choose to initiate a new
claim; terminate any pending motions, and, close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, on this
16th
day
of July, 2012.
SA: hmk
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
(...continued)
prior filing history.”)(citing Hood v. Tompkins, No. CV 605-094
(S.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2005), aff'd, 197 F. App'x 818 (11th Cir.
2006)(per curiam)).
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?