Nelson v. Danforth et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendations. Therefore, this case is dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process and this civil action is closed. Also, denying 9 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 5/30/13. (cmr)

.j.!-Lir

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT

itlr ir

nU:'rJi;'i.',
i:

',

ij t{,1X10/ I
DrsrRrcr GE6RGTA:'I
FoR
rHEsourHERN
oF
ft'l
DUBLIN DIVISION

IL

NELSON,
JURDIS
Plaintiff,

cv 313-022
WILLIAM DANFORTH,Warden,
and
DIANNE DEES,DeputyWarden Care
of
andTreatment,
Defendants.

ORDER
After a careful,de novoreviewof the file, the Courtconcwswith the Magistrate
("R&R"), to whichobjections
ReportandRecommendation
Judge's
havebeenfiled (doc.
no. 9).r The Magistrate
Judgedetermined Plaintifflied abouthis filing historyunder
that
penalty
by
ofperjury,specifically failingto disclose
multipleprior cases hehadhled in
that
federal court, including one in which he had beenallowed to proceedin forma pauperis
("IFP") which was dismissed frivolous. (Doc. no. 7, pp. 2-3.) As a result, he
as
dismissed
withoutprejudice a sanction
recommended thiscasebe
that
as
forPlaintifFsabuse
(Id.
Plaintiffdoes dispute Magistrate
not
the
ofthejudicial process. at4.) In his objections,
findingthatheprovided
Judge's
falseinformation
abouthis filing history,but he contends
and
the
form
thathehasa limitededucation thathemisunderstood question hiscomplaint
on
'While Plaintifftitled his filing asa "Motion to Amend"andit wasentered the
on
issue
findingsin theR&R therein,
assuch, alsotakes
he
with theMagistrate
Judge's
docket
Plaintifflsobjections the
to
the
andtheCourtthusliberallyconstrues motionascontaining
R&R,

i

generally
his
filing history. (See
doc.no. 9.)
askinghim to disclose entirefederal
the
lack merit. The
Upon consideration, Court finds that Plaintiffs objections
question the form that Plaintiff claimshe misunderstood,
on
labeled"8," asks,"While
you
in
any
in
incarcerated detained anyfacility,have brought lawsuits federal
or
courtwhich
deal with factsotherthan thoseinvolvedin this action?"2(Doc. no. l, p. 2 (emphasis
added).)Plaintiff clearlyunderstood question
the
well enough disclose ofhis prior
to
one
(see
in
fashion
cases his complaint, id. at 2-3),andheonlyalleges conclusory
in
now thathe
misunderstood question.r Courttherefore
the
The
findsPlaintiff s belated
assertion he
that
misunderstood question
this
unavailing.Moresignificantly,
Plaintiffoffersno explanation
question falsely,
plaintiffhasever
fbr why he alsoanswered
whichasksif theprisoner
"C"
hada lawsuitin whichhe wasallo*'edto proceed dismisse.d frivolous,malicious,
IFP
or
as
for I'ailure statea claim,(see at 3).
id.
to
falseinformation theCourtby declaring,
Plaintiffthusprovided
to
underpenalty
of
perjury, hehadonlybrought otherfederal
one
whenin facthehadbrought
that
case,
several,a

2lfthereis morethanonelawsuit,a prisoner
plaintiff is directed "describe
to
each
pieceof
lawsuitin the space
the
lawsuitson another
below" andto "describe additional
(Doc. 1,p.2.)
paper."
no.
tNotably,the Eleventh
Circuit,in anunpublished
opinion,specifically
the
rejected
on
formwasambiguous. Hoodv. Tomokins,
contention thisquestion thecomplaint
that
See
(percuriam).
197F. App'x 818,819(11thCir. 2006)
lPlaintiff alsoasserls he did not file two of the cases
that
notedby the Magistrate
(M.D.
v.
9,
Judge,
Nelson Zanders,
5:97-cv-005IO-HL-CWH Ga.Sept. 1998) Nelsonv.
and
(Sccdoc.no.I, p. 1.) Plaintiffoffersnothing
(S.D.Ga.Feb. 1997).
Abbott,CV 397-004
26,
that
however.Moreoveq
even
ifthe Courtwereto assume
arguendo
to veriff thisassertion,
the
Judge
alsoidentifiedfour other
Plaintiff did not in factfile these cases, Magistrate
two
including in whichhe wasallowedto proceed
federal
PlaintilTfailed disclose,
to
one
cases
(N.D.Ga.
1
as
Nelson Keenan, :11-cv-02005-AT
v.
IFP andwhichwasdismissed frivolous,

t

in
IFP
that
andby alsodeclaring hehadnot hada case whichhewasproceeding dismissed
or
a
asfiivolous or malicious for failingto state claim,whenhe in fact hadonesuchcase.
the
and
Simplyput, the Courtwill not allowPlaintiffto abuse judicial process thenescape
excuses
beingsanctioned offeringimplausible
by
uponthediscovery
ofhis dishonesty.
See
(1lth Cir. 1998)
(emphasizing
Rivera Allin, 144F.3d719,721-27
v.
seriousness
ofabuse
ofjudicial process
that occurswhen litigant lies aboutthe existence a prior lawsuit),
of
on
v.
abrogated othergroundsby Jones Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (200'/). In light of these
are
considerations,
Plaintiff s objections OVERRULED.
a
his
Plaintiffalso
requests chance amend complaint'to fix whatever wrong."
to
[is]
(Doc.no. 9, p. 1.) TheCourtis aware a partyis allowed amend pleading
that
to
his
once,as
pleading served.SeeFed.R. Civ. P.
is
a matterof course, anytimebeforea responsive
at
his
15(a).However,
to
the
citedin the
"allowingPlaintifftoamend complaint include cases
R & R at this time wouldcircumvent Court'sabilityto manage docket imposing
the
by
its
for
aboutprior filing history." Brownv. Overstreet,
sanctions providingfalseinformation
Put
way,
CV | 07-113,2008
WL282689, *2 n.2(S.D. Jan.30,2008). another to allow
at
Ga.
what
havedisclosed
earlier
to
Plaintifftonow"acknowledge heshould
wouldserve overlook
v.
ofthejudicialprocess."
Hood,197F. App'x at 819;see
alsoHarris Warden,
his abuse
(1
plaintifflsargument
498 F. App'x 962,964-65 lth Cir. 2012)Qtercurian) (rejecting
that
its
by
his
district court abused discretion dismissing complaintwithout prejudiceas a
for
before"allowinghim 'to correct'his failureto
sanction abuse thejudicial process
of

not
thathe filed those
Dec. 1, 201l), (sggdoc.no. 7, p. 3 & n.4),andPlaintiffdoes dispute
four cases.

is
his
disclose prior litigationhistory.").Plaintifls motionto amend thusDENIED. (Doc.
no.9.)
Judge ADOPTED
is
Accordingly,theReportandRecommendation theMagistrate
of
this
is
as the opinionof the Court. Therefore, case DISMISSED without prejudiceas a
for
of
and
sanction Plaintiff s abuse thejudicial process, thiscivil actionis CLOSED.

so ORDEREDtnixflSayor

Georgia.
, 2013,at Augusta,