Carter v. McCullen et al
ORDER directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for his failure to honestly apprise the Court of his litigation history; show cause response due by October 8, 2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey on 9/7/2021. (KLC)
Case 3:21-cv-00838-BJD-JBT Document 3 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GERALD JAMES CARTER,
Case No. 3:21-cv-838-BJD-JBT
J. MCCULLEN, et al.,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on August 26, 2021, by mailing to
the Court a Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1; Compl.) and a request to proceed as a pauper
(Doc. 3). The Court-approved Civil Rights Complaint form requires prisoners to disclose
information regarding previous lawsuits initiated by them, including those dealing with the
same facts or relating to the conditions of their confinement. See Compl. at 9-10. Plaintiff
executed and signed the Complaint form, certifying his compliance with Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 11. In response to the following question, Plaintiff
responded “no”: “Have you filed other lawsuits in state or federal court otherwise relating
to the conditions of your imprisonment?” Id. at 9-10.
A search of Plaintiff’s litigation history reveals he previously filed the following
cases relating to the conditions of his confinement: (1) 3:13-cv-01208-BJD-JRK (M.D.
Fla.) (alleging Eighth Amendment violations by officers at Suwannee Correctional
Institution-Annex); (2) 5:16-cv-00299-LC-CJK (N.D. Fla.) (alleging Eighth Amendment
violations by officers at Northwest Florida Reception Center); (3) 3:17-cv-00130-HESMCR (M.D. Fla.) (alleging Eighth Amendment violations by officers at Florida State
Case 3:21-cv-00838-BJD-JBT Document 3 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 33
Prison); and (4) 3:18-cv-01414-HLA-JRK (M.D. Fla.) (alleging Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment violations by officers and a doctor at Florida State Prison).
A district court may impose sanctions, including the dismissal of an action without
prejudice, against “a party [who] knowingly files a pleading contain[ing] false contentions.”
Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)).
Additionally, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides a district court shall
promptly review complaints filed by prisoners against governmental entities or officers.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Under the PLRA, a court must dismiss a complaint or a
portion of a complaint if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim. Id.
See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). The Eleventh Circuit has held, “In the
analogous context of the dismissal of a suit as malicious under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), . . . [a
prisoner’s] failure to comply with court rules requiring disclosures about [his] previous
litigation constitutes an abuse of the judicial process warranting dismissal.” Sears v. Haas,
509 F. App’x 935, 936 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613
(11th Cir. 1997)). See also Jenkins v. Hutcheson, 708 F. App’x 647, 648 (11th Cir. 2018)
(affirming dismissal without prejudice under § 1915 for the plaintiff’s “failure to fully
disclose his litigation history”).
Given Plaintiff’s apparent lack of candor, the dismissal of this action may be
warranted as an abuse of the judicial process. Therefore, by October 8, 2021, Plaintiff
shall SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for his
failure to honestly apprise this Court of his litigation history. Plaintiff’s failure to show
satisfactory cause by the designated deadline may result in the dismissal of this case
without further notice.
Case 3:21-cv-00838-BJD-JBT Document 3 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 34
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 7th day of September, 2021.
Gerald James Carter, #G11093
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?