Champ v. Lee County Sheriff's Office Corrections Bureau et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL dismissing case without prejudice. Such dismissal counts as a "strike" for the purposes of the 3-strikes provision. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/20/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SEAN PHILLIP CHAMP,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:17-cv-555-FtM-29CM

LEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
CORRECTIONS BUREAU, OFFICE
OF THE SHERIFF, and MICHAEL
SCOTT, Official Capacity,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a pro se civil rights
complaint and a motion for leave to proceed as a pauper. (Doc. 1;
Doc. 2).

Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Lee County Jail.

On

October 12, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause 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. 7).

Plaintiff

responded by saying that he understood the form to ask only for
other complaints based upon his current incarceration (Doc. 9).
Plaintiff executed the civil rights complaint form under
penalty of perjury (Doc. 1).

Page Eleven of that form requires

prisoners to disclose information regarding previous lawsuits.
Specifically, it required Plaintiff to disclose whether he had
“filed other lawsuits in state or federal court otherwise relating

to the conditions of your confinement?” (Doc. 1 at 11). The form
directed Plaintiff to identify all prior complaints. Id.
checked “no” and listed no prior cases.

Id.

Plaintiff

However, the Court

identified the following cases brought by Plaintiff in the Middle
District of Florida: (1) 2:09-cv-32-UA-SPC; (2) 2:09-cv-424-CEHSPC; (3) 3:16-cv-1227-TJC-JRK; (4) 3:14-cv-857-MMH-JNT; and (5)
3:14-cv-809-MMH-JBT.

Each of these cases raise issues relating

to Plaintiff's 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
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 raised in prior litigation.
litigation

frequently

enables

Identification of that prior

the

Court

to

dispose

of

the

successive case without further expenditure of finite judicial
resources.

This is particularly true with plaintiffs such as Mr.

Champ who tend to file multiple suits involving similar situations
whenever in custody.
In the absence of any basis for excusing a plaintiff’s lack
of candor, failure to disclose and truthfully describe previous

- 2 -

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).

In Redmon, the

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
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, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (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.

- 3 -

Similar to the plaintiff in Redmon, Plaintiff argues that he
understood the form to ask whether he had filed other cases
relating to the same facts as the instant case (Doc. 9).
Court does not find this assertion credible.

The

The complaint form

clearly asks whether Plaintiff had filed other lawsuits “dealing
with the same facts involved in this action” and separately asks
whether he had filed suits “otherwise relating to the conditions
of your imprisonment.” (Doc. 1 at 10-11).

Plaintiff is a frequent

litigant in this Court, and has been reminded of his responsibility
to be completely truthful on his complaint forms.

The Court finds

that Plaintiff was aware of his obligation to reveal his prior
litigation.

Plaintiff's failure to fully disclose his previous

lawsuits, under penalty of perjury, constitutes an abuse of the
judicial process.
Cir. 1998).

See Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th

An appropriate sanction for such abuse of the judicial

process is the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.
Moreover,

because

of

Plaintiff’s

unusual

handwriting

Id.
and

decision not to place the bulk of his statements on the lines
provided,

the

pleadings

filed

in

this

action

are

virtually

incomprehensible and are subject to dismissal on that ground as
well.

Should Plaintiff decide to file a new case in this Court,

he must either type the complaint or use regular block print as he
has done in other cases filed in this Court.

- 4 -

Any future pleading

filed in this Court containing Plaintiff’s tiny handwriting will
be returned.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.

This

case

is

DISMISSED

without

prejudice.

Such

dismissal counts as a “strike” for the purposes of the threestrikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2.

The

Clerk

of

Court

is

directed

to

enter

judgment

dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending
motions, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this
of October, 2017.

SA: OrlP-4
Copies: All Parties of Record

- 5 -

20th

day