Jenkins v. Hutcheson et al
ORDER denying 3 Motion; adopting re 6 Report and Recommendations; denying 9 Motion for Leave to File. This civil action is Dismissed without prejudice and stands closed. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/20/16. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-59
UNIT MANAGER JOESPH HUTCHESON;
and WARDEN STANDLEY WILLIAMS,
Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated August 19, 2016, (doc. 8), and his related Motion to Amend, (doc. 9).
After a de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Report and
Recommendation, OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections, and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss this action for Plaintiffs
failure to truthfully disclose all of his prior lawsuits. (Doc. 6, pp. 4-7.) In his Objections,
Plaintiff asserts he "mistakenly failed to refer to" one of his previously-filed lawsuits, Jenkins v.
Hutcheson, 6:14-cv-30. (Doc. 8, p. 3.) However, as the Magistrate Judge stated, the form
complaint Plaintiff used to file the instant cause of action clearly asks whether the plaintiff
previously filed any cause of action, and a party's failure to disclose his previous lawsuits—for
whatever reason—is grounds for dismissal for lack of candor. (Doc. 6, pp. 4-7.) Plaintiff
additionally states he disclosed the filing ofJenkins v. Jackson, l:14-cv-1686 (N.D. Ga. June 13,
2016) (dismissed for failure to state a claim). Plaintiff did disclose this lawsuit, and the
Magistrate Judge listed this cause of action as a previous lawsuit Plaintiff disclosed. However,
the Magistrate Judge's citation to this cause of action was not for purposes of dismissal under 28
U.S.C. §1915(g)1, as Plaintiff appears to believe. Rather, the Magistrate Judge cited this case as
an example of Plaintiff having complied with the directives of the form complaint, but only to a
point. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to disclose Case Number 6:14-cv-50 as a previously-filed
lawsuit. While this cause of action was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia and was
assigned Case Number l:14-cv-1686 in that court, Plaintiff nevertheless failed to disclose his
In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint for the express purpose
of listing Case Number 6:14-cv-30 as one of his previous lawsuits. However, the Eleventh
Circuit has explained that district courts should not allow parties to cure their lack of candor with
such after the fact amendments. Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App'x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006)
("The objections were considered, butthe district court was correct to conclude that to allow [the
plaintiff] to then acknowledge what he should have disclosed earlier would serve to overlook his
abuse of the judicial process."). Consequently, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to amend his
Complaint to remedy his earlier abuse of the judicial process. Thus, the Court DENIES
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend.
For all of these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, as supplemented herein, as the opinion of the Court and OVERRULES
Plaintiffs Objections. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint, without prejudice, and
DENIES Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. All other pending motions are
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding
under this section ifthe prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in acourt 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
DISMISSED as MOOT. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter an appropriate
judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED, this^^day of
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?