GAGUSKI v. HUMPHREY et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING 30 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 24 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/25/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
RUDOLPH SHAWN GAGUSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARL HUMPHREY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-97 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles
(Doc. 30) on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24). The Magistrate Judge
recommends granting the motion because the Plaintiff, a prisoner suing pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, has abused the judicial process by failing to disclose all of his prior
lawsuits when asked to do so on his § 1983 complaint form. The Plaintiff has objected
to the Recommendation. The Court has considered the objection and has made a de
novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects.
The Plaintiff contends he only disclosed one prior lawsuit because it was the
only one that was “actually going.”1 The Plaintiff appears to contend he thought the
form only required him to disclose lawsuits that were active in some way. 2 However,
the plain language of the form belies this interpretation. The section entitled “Previous

1

The rest of the Plaintiff’s objection deals with the substance of his claim and does not address the
findings in the Recommendation.

2

The Plaintiff also contends that the clerk mistakenly filed some of his documents as new cases when he
really intended them as amendments to his existing case. However, the Magistrate Judge only
considered six of the nine cases cited by the Defendants because three of them were consolidated with
the one case the Plaintiff listed on his § 1983 form.

Lawsuits” begins with the statement: “NOTE: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL PRIOR
CIVIL CASES MAY RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE. IF YOU ARE
UNSURE OF ANY PRIOR CASES YOU HAVE FILED, THAT FACT MUST BE
DISCLOSED AS WELL.” (Doc. 9 at 2) (emphasis in original). The form then separately
asks whether the Plaintiff has filed lawsuits with “the same or similar facts or issues”
and whether the Plaintiff has filed other lawsuits. (Doc. 9 at 2). Thus, the Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that the Plaintiff’s failure to disclose all prior lawsuits amounts
to abuse of the judicial process.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and the Plaintiff’s objection, and
the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this
Court. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED and the
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March, 2014.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT