Fuentes v. Jones et al
ORDER dismissing the case without prejudice; directing the Clerk to enter judgment, close the case, and terminate any pending motions. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 10/8/2019. (KLC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
YOANDRIS ROSALES FUENTES,
Case No. 3:19-cv-941-J-39JRK
JULIE JONES, et al.,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 15, 2019, by filing
a civil rights complaint (Doc. 1; Complaint) and a request to
proceed as a pauper (Doc. 2). Plaintiff executed and signed the
civil rights complaint form, certifying his compliance with Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Complaint at 12. The
including those dealing with the same facts or relating to the
conditions of their confinement. Id. at 9. In response to the
following question on the complaint form, Plaintiff responded
“no”: “Have you filed other lawsuits in state or federal court
otherwise relating to the conditions of your imprisonment?” Id. at
On August 20, 2019, the Court directed Plaintiff to show
cause, by September 23, 2019, why this case should not be dismissed
for his failure to honestly apprise this Court of his litigation
history. See Order (Doc. 3). The Court advised Plaintiff that his
failure to show satisfactory cause would result in the dismissal
of this case without further notice.
On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed an untitled document,
which, while largely indecipherable, appears to be a response to
the order to show cause (Doc. 5; Response). The Court finds
Plaintiff’s Response unsatisfactory. Significantly, Plaintiff does
not explain why he misrepresented his litigation history, nor does
misrepresentation. Rather, Plaintiff merely lists the cases this
Court cited in its order to show cause, and he states he was a
“victim of abuse” in each of those cases. See Response at 2.1
Additionally, Plaintiff failed to include an original signature.
A court may, in its discretion, dismiss a complaint for abuse
of the judicial process if a pro se plaintiff knowingly and
conditions of his confinement. See Harris v. Warden, 498 F. App’x
962, 964 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). The Court finds Plaintiff’s
deliberately. The complaint form dedicates an entire section,
Plaintiff also asks for a copy of his “investigation” back.
It is unclear what Plaintiff is referring to or requesting.
“previous lawsuits.” See Complaint at 9-11. Specifically, the
complaint form requires a plaintiff to disclose whether he has had
a case dismissed under the “three strikes” rule; whether he filed
prior cases dealing with the same facts; or whether he filed prior
cases based on the conditions of his confinement. In response to
these three questions, Plaintiff checked the box indicating a “no”
previous lawsuits. Id. at 10-11.
Plaintiff’s responses indicate he read and understood the
complaint form yet chose to withhold crucial information.2 See
Harris, 498 F. App’x at 964-65 (holding the district court’s
finding of an “affirmative misrepresentation” was not an abuse of
discretion where the plaintiff made no attempt to disclose any
information about his prior cases but instead marked “no” or “not
applicable” in response to the questions). Even if Plaintiff did
not intend to mispresent the facts or did not understand the
complaint form, dismissal would be an appropriate sanction. See
Notably, Plaintiff is familiar with the civil rights
complaint form and has demonstrated an understanding of the
questions. On February 15, 2019, Plaintiff completed and submitted
a civil rights complaint form in a separate action. See Case No.
3:19-cv-215-J-39MCR. In that complaint form, Plaintiff disclosed
a prior case he filed based on the same facts.
Jenkins v. Hutcheson, 708 F. App’x 647, 648–49 (11th Cir. 2018)
(per curiam) (affirming the district court’s sanction of dismissal
because the plaintiff’s failure to disclose previous lawsuits,
even if unintentional, frustrated the district court’s ability to
perform its screening function under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act); Redmon v. Lake Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 414 F. App’x 221, 22526 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (affirming the district court’s
dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff misrepresented
litigant, stated he did not understand the complaint form).
To effectively screen and manage the cases before it, this
Court must require all litigants, especially those proceeding pro
se, to approach the Court with candor and to abide Court orders
and rules. As such, the Court concludes dismissal without prejudice
is an appropriate sanction under these circumstances.3 If Plaintiff
decides to file another civil rights action in this Court, he must
completely and truthfully respond to all questions on the civil
rights complaint form.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff complains of conduct that
occurred on August 17, 2017. See Complaint at 5. Thus, a dismissal
of the Complaint will not be tantamount to a dismissal with
prejudice because the four-year limitations period has not run.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial process.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this
case, close the case, and terminate any pending motions.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 8th day of
Yoandris Rosales Fuentes, #B11236
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?