JACKSON v. WASHINGTON STATE PRISON et al
ORDER adopting 34 Report and Recommendations; denying as moot 29 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying as moot 32 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 19 Motion to Dismiss. This case is hereby Dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 8/16/2017 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WASHINGTON STATE PRISON
ORDER ON RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [Doc.
34] to grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 19] and deny as
moot Plaintiff’s motions to amend his Complaint [Docs 29 and 32]. Plaintiff has timely
filed an Objection [Doc. 36] to the Recommendation and Defendants have filed a
response [Doc. 37].
Having considered the Recommendation and Objection pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), the Court finds Plaintiff’s Objection fails to overcome the finding that his
Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for engaging in bad faith
litigiousness and abusing the judicial process. In his Objection, Plaintiff repeats the
argument that his case should not be dismissed for his failure to disclose at least seven
prior lawsuits on his section 1983 Complaint form due to his alleged poor memory.
Plaintiff repeats his allegations that he “has problems remember[ing] from day to day,”
and again argues his poor memory should excuse any failure to disclose his prior
lawsuits.1 Plaintiff however, fails to overcome the Recommendation’s reasoning that
“Plaintiff knew about his previous lawsuits but chose not to disclose them to the Court,
engaging in bad faith litigiousness and abusing the judicial process.”2 Indeed, Plaintiff’s
reliance on a previous action he filed reaffirms the Recommendation’s conclusion that
Plaintiff has engaged in bad faith litigiousness and abuse of the judicial process.
Plaintiff points to the initial complaint he filed in Jackson v. Smith, Case No. 1:15‐CV‐
3309 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 28, 2015), where he failed to disclose prior lawsuits, but that court
offered him an opportunity to amend his complaint to allow him to list the prior
lawsuits. However, that Plaintiff’s failure to disclose his prior lawsuits went
unsanctioned in that case, only reaffirms that Plaintiff knew about his prior lawsuits,
and the same failure to disclose those suits should not go unsanctioned here.
Therefore, after reviewing these matters de novo, the Court agrees with the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Recommendation
[Doc. 34] is hereby ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 19] is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend
Complaint [Docs 29 and 32] are DENIED as moot; and this case is hereby DISMISSED
1 Doc. 36, pp. 2‐3.
2 Doc. 37, pp. 5‐6.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of August, 2017.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
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?