Cassady v. Dozier et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 4 Amended Complaint filed by David Dwayne Cassady be dismissed without prejudice as a sanction. Objections to R&R due by 11/16/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/27/2017. (jlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DAVID DWAYNE CASSADY, a/k/a
DANA MARIE CASSADY
GREGORY DOZIER, Commissioner;
SHAWN EMMONS, Warden; ANGELYN )
CURRY; Manager, Inmate Affairs; TOM
MCELHANEY, Deputy Director of Medical )
Services; SHARON LEWIS, State Medical )
Director; and DOES 1-30,
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate at Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, has submitted a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events at Johnson State Prison in
Wrightsville, Georgia. Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Plaintiff’s
complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d
782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App’x 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006). After a
review of Plaintiff’s complaint and prior history of case filings, the Court REPORTS and
RECOMMENDS this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
A prisoner attempting to proceed IFP in a civil action in federal court must comply
with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) of
the PLRA provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
“This provision of the PLRA, commonly known as the three strikes provision, requires
frequent filer prisoners to prepay the entire filing fee before federal courts may consider their
lawsuits and appeals.” Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 723 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations
omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). The Eleventh
Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of § 1915(g) because it does not violate an inmate’s
right to access to the courts, the doctrine of separation of powers, an inmate’s right to due
process of law, or an inmate’s right to equal protection. Id. at 721-27.
To that end, the “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Prisoner)” for the Southern
District of Georgia requires that prisoner plaintiffs disclose: (1) whether they have brought
any federal lawsuit that was dismissed based on the “three strikes rule,” (2) whether they
have brought any federal lawsuit involving the same facts as their present case, and (3)
whether they have brought any other federal lawsuit otherwise relating to the conditions of
Here, Plaintiff arguably identified three previous cases he filed, Cassady v. Walker et
al., CV 109-128 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 16, 2009); Cassady v. Owens et al., CV 408-250 (S.D. Ga.
Dec. 15, 2008); and Cassady v. Hamrick, CV 407-188 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 26, 2007). (Doc. no.
1, pp. 16-18.) However, the Court is aware of at least five other § 1983 cases Plaintiff
previously filed in federal court. See Cassady v. Hall et al., CV 515-255 (M.D. Ga. June 30,
2015); Cassady v. Hall et al., CV 514-025 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2014); Cassady v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., CV 313-092 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2013); Cassady v. Milton et al.,
CV 412-008 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2012); Cassady v. Williams et al., CV 408-177 (S.D. Ga.
Aug. 4, 2008). Thus, Plaintiff provided false information about his prior filing history in his
The Eleventh Circuit has indicated its approval of dismissing a case based on
dishonesty in a complaint. In Rivera, the Court of Appeals reviewed a prisoner plaintiff’s
filing history for the purpose of determining whether prior cases counted as “strikes” under
the PLRA and stated:
The district court’s dismissal without prejudice in Parker is equally, if not
more, strike-worthy. In that case, the court found that Rivera had lied under
penalty of perjury about the existence of a prior lawsuit, Arocho. As a
sanction, the court dismissed the action without prejudice, finding that Rivera
“abuse[d] the judicial process[.]”
Rivera, 144 F.3d at 731 (citations omitted); see also Young v. Sec’y Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 380
F. App’x 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal under inherent power of federal
courts based on plaintiff’s failure to disclose prior cases on court’s complaint form).
The practice of dismissing a case as a sanction for providing false information about
prior filing history is also well established in the Southern District of Georgia. See, e.g.,
Brown v. Wright, CV 111-044 (S.D. Ga. June 17, 2011); Hood v. Tompkins, CV 605-094
(S.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2005), aff’d, 197 F. App’x 818 (11th Cir. 2006). Because Plaintiff
provided blatantly dishonest answers in his complaint, this case should be dismissed.
Because Plaintiff has abused the judicial process by providing dishonest information
about his prior filing history, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this action be
DISMISSED without prejudice as a sanction.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of October, 2017, at Augusta,
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?