Green v. Blair et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Report and Recommendations, OVERRULING Plaintiff's objections, DISMISSING this case without prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process, and CLOSING this civil action. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 04/23/2018. (maa)

t^-S.DiSTRicfcOURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2018 APR 23 PH3:29
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION

CLERH

SO. flpSr^GA.

FREDERICK D. GREEN,

Plaintiff,
CV 318-013

V.

JAMES BLAIR and

LIEUTENANT FOREMAN,
Defendants.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed (doc. no. 16). The
Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice as a sanction for
Plaintiff providing dishonest information about his filing history. (See doc. no. 13.) Plaintiff
does not deny he filed the undisclosed case identified by the Magistrate Judge, but he claims
he knew "full well" that the Court had the resources to discover his prior filings. Thus, he

"mentioned" he could not remember the details of his prior filings "so that the Court could
do its own research." (Doc. no. 16, p. 1.)

The plain language of the complaint form explains a prisoner plaintiff must disclose
his prior filing history and specifically asks if any prior case had been dismissed on the
ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1-3.) As

the Magistrate Judge explained, Plaintiff misstated his prior history. (Doc. no. 13, pp. 3-4.)

The undisclosed case actually had had two trips through federal court, one in the Middle
District of Georgia and one in the Northern District of Georgia - neither of which was
disclosed. (Id.)

An incomplete description of litigation history blamed on an allegedly vague memory
is not an acceptable reason to excuse dishonesty:

The plain language of the standard complaint form is clear - asking
whether Plaintiff "ever filed any lawsuit while incarcerated or detained."
(citation omitted) Thus, regardless of the outcome of Plaintiffs prior lawsuits,
his initiation of those lawsuits is the precise type of activity for which this
prompt requires disclosure. Plaintiff failed to fully disclose the information
requested about his prior lawsuits and appeals. This constitutes a lack of
candor that will not be tolerated in this Court. Plaintiff attempts to explain
away his lack of candor by stating that he does not have full records regarding
his past cases, (citation omitted) However, Plaintiff did not make any real
effort to describe his cases....

Ballou V. Meadows RegT Med. Ctr.. 6:17-CV-121, doc. no. 13, p. 9 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 10,
2017), adopted by doc. no. 16(S.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2018).

Similarly here, Plaintiff argues he should be excused from providing honest responses

even though he made no real effort to describe his prior cases because he made passing
mention that he had filed other, undisclosed lawsuits. However, it is incumbent on Plaintiff,

who signed his complaint under penalty of perjury, to provide accurate information about his
prior filing history. It is not incumbent on the Court to ferret out the true status of Plaintiffs
prior cases. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim rings hollow that he could remember a lawsuit from
2009 but could not recall any details of a case filed in 2014 that made its way through two
different federal courts. As the case law cited in the Report and Recommendation makes
clear, failing to disclose prior filing history will not be tolerated, and the Eleventh Circuit has
2

repeatedly approved of dismissing a case without prejudice as a sanction. (See doc. no. 13,
pp. 4-5.)

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES this case without
prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiffs abuse of the judicial process, and CLOSES this civil
action.

SO ORDERED this

day of April, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE