Miller v. Prummell et al

Filing 11

OPINION AND ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 5/5/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
KALIM NYABINGHI MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:2:16-cv-759-FtM-29CM

BILL PRUMMELL, KATHRYN
HORST and MICHAEL GRIFFIN,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
This

matter

comes

before

the

Court

on

Plaintiff,

Kalim

Nyabinghi Miller's Complaint (Doc. 1) filed on October 11, 2016.
On April 17, 2017, the Court ordered Miller to show cause, within
fourteen days, why this case should not be dismissed for abuse of
the judicial process because he failed to truthfully disclose all
of his prior federal cases, as required on the complaint form (Doc.
10).

The time to respond to the Court’s Order has expired and

Miller has failed to respond.
Miller executed the civil rights complaint form under penalty
of perjury (Doc. 1).

Miller was questioned on page two of his

Complaint whether he had “initiated other actions in federal court
dealing with the same or similar facts/issues involved in this
action or otherwise relating to your imprisonment or conditions
thereof?”

Plaintiff

checked

“no.”

Id.

The

Court,

however,

identified the following cases brought by the Plaintiff in the

Middle District of Florida: (1) 2:13-cv-155, and (2) 2:09-cv-802.
Both of these cases dealt with issues relating to Plaintiffs
imprisonment or the conditions thereof.
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”

pauperis).

applicable

to

prisoners

proceeding

in

forma

Additionally, it has been the Court’s experience that

a significant number of prisoner filings raise claims or issues
that have already been raised 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 plaintiff’s 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 Sheriff’s Office,
414 F. App’x 221, 225 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011). 1

In Redmon, the

Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a prisoner’s civil

1

Pursuant to 11th Cir. Rule 36-2, unpublished opinions are not
binding precedent but may be cited as persuasive authority.

2

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
his explanation did not excuse his misrepresentation because the
complaint form “clearly asked Plaintiff to disclose previously
filed lawsuits[.]” Id.

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. 11(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, 113 S. Ct. 1980,
1984 (1993).
Id.

The failure to exercise candor in completing the form, while

acknowledging that the answers are made under penalty of perjury,
impedes the Court in managing its caseload and merits the sanction
of dismissal.
Although given an opportunity to do so (Doc. 10), Miller has
not provided any reason for his failure to reveal his prior
litigation.

Miller'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

3

Cir. 1998). An appropriate sanction for such abuse of the judicial
process is the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

Id.

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff, Kalim Nyabinghi Miller's Complaint (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is directed

to enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions, and
close the file
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this
May, 2017.

Copies:
Kalim Nyabinghi Miller
All Parties of Record
SA: FtMP-2

4

5th

day of