Eady v. Dodge County Court et al

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the 1 Complaint filed by Andy Eady be dismissed without prejudice as a sanction. Objections to R&R due by 1/22/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 1/05/2018. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
ANDY EADY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DODGE COUNTY COURT; TAMMATHA )
B. WIGGINS; DISTRICT ATTORNEY; and )
CHRIS GARDEN,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)

CV 317-057

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee at Dodge County Jail in Eastman, Georgia, has submitted
a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.
I.

BACKGROUND
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
injury.
“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 of 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 “Form to be Used by Prisoners in Filing a Complaint under the Civil
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983” for the Southern District of Georgia requires that prisoner
plaintiffs disclose: (1) whether they have brought any lawsuit involving the same facts as
their present case; and (2) whether they have brought any federal lawsuit dealing with facts
other than those in their present case.
II.

DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff answered he had not previously filed any lawsuit in federal court.

(Doc. no. 1, pp. 1-2.) However, the Court is aware of at least one other § 1983 case Plaintiff
previously filed in federal court. See Eady v. Dodge County Jail et al., CV 317-055 (S.D.
Ga. Sept. 27, 2017). Thus, Plaintiff provided false information about his prior filing history
in his complaint.
The Eleventh Circuit has indicated its approval of dismissing a case based on
2

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.
III.

CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff has abused the judicial process by providing dishonest information

about his prior filing history, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this action be

3

DISMISSED without prejudice as a sanction.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 2018, at Augusta,
Georgia.

4