LUCAS v. The State of Georgia et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 38 Report and Recommendations.; granting 20 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 1/8/2013. (bcl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CHRISTOPHER HUGH LUCAS,
STATE OF GEORGIA, et al,
Case No. 1:12-cv-12 (WLS)
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas
Q. Langstaff, filed December 5, 2012. (Doc. 38). It is recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed without prejudice for abuse of process. (Id. at 8.) The basis for the recommendation is
Plaintiff’s failure to disclose six cases he filed in federal courts involving the same facts or
related to his imprisonment. (Id.) In his initial complaint, Plaintiff listed three cases out of his
nine previous lawsuits. (Id. at 3–4.) Judge Langstaff found unpersuasive Plaintiff’s reasons for
failing to disclose those lawsuits and recommends dismissal as a sanction for the
misrepresentation. (Id. at 7.)
The Report and Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days1 from the
date of its service to file written objections to the recommendations therein. (Id. at 8.) The
period for filing objections expired on Monday, December 24, 2012. Plaintiff timely filed his
Objection on December 20, 2012. (Doc. 39). Defendants responded on December 27, 2012.
The Parties were given an additional three days because service was made by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d)
(adding three days to specified period within which a party may act if service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) by
mailing process to a party’s last known address).
In his Objection, Plaintiff claims he did not intentionally misrepresent the number of his
previous lawsuits. (Doc. 39 at 1.) As support, he argues he thought the Attorney General’s Office
would provide a list of his previous lawsuits because it maintains complete records of inmate
cases. (Id. at 2.) He would never mislead the Court, he claims, because “he viewed it as an
unbiased savior that would simply have Defendants comply with its transfer policy, case closed.”
(Id. at 3.) Furthermore, although he lacks precedential support, he hopes to “simply throw
himself at the ‘mercy of the court’ and stand firm on ‘moral law and ethics,’ which existed long
before state and federal law.” (Id. at 4.)
As Judge Langstaff already noted, however, “there is [no] authority for the position that
because the State was in possession of the information requested, the State and not the Plaintiff
was obligated to disclose information regarding Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits.” (Doc. 38 at 7.) Rather,
a wealth of authority in the Eleventh Circuit establishes that an inmate’s failure to disclose
previous lawsuits in its complaint can amount to an abuse of process. E.g., Redmon v. Lake Cnty.
Sheriff’s Office, 414 F. App’x 221, 225–26 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Hood v. Tompkins, 197
F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Although Courts liberally construe pro se
pleadings, pro se plaintiffs are not excused from procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
Plaintiff’s explanations for his failure to disclose the lawsuit are unpersuasive. That he
may have thought the Court would “simply” require Defendants to order his transfer does not
excuse misrepresentations. Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff allegedly served in the Marine
Corps, owned several businesses, and is a “32d degree Mason” is not, ipso facto, evidence of
honesty, especially when Plaintiff conveniently remembered several of his previous lawsuits that
would seemingly not count against the PLRA’s three-strike provision, but failed to disclose those
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 39) is OVERRULED, and U.S. Magistrate
Langstaff’s December 5, 2012 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38) is ACCEPTED,
ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated
therein, together with the reasons stated and conclusions reached herein. The Court therefore
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of January 2013.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?