Muhammad v. Hardy et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 7/5/2011: The plaintiff's complaint is summarily dismissed with prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to advise the court that he had "struck out." Further, although war ned by this Court in the past, Plaintiff failed to notify the Court of all prior litigation, an additional fraud on the Court. See Muhammad v. IDOC Director Roger Walker, Case No. 05 C 1580 (N.D.Ill) (Leinenweber, J.) (March 29, 2005); see also Hoski ns v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, (7th Cir. 2010). The case is terminated. Having brought this action, the plaintiff nevertheless remains obligated to pay the full filing fee. Before pursuing any future litigation, the plaintiff must pay any outstanding fees. All pending motions are denied as moot. [For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice (ph, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Harry D. Leinenweber

CASE NUMBER

11 C 3488

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

7/5/2011

Shaheed Muhammad (#B-67134) v. Marcus Hardy, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The plaintiff’s complaint is summarily dismissed with prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to advise the court that he had
“struck out.” Further, although warned by this Court in the past, Plaintiff failed to notify the Court of all prior litigation,
an additional fraud on the Court. See Muhammad v. IDOC Director Roger Walker, Case No. 05 C 1580 (N.D.Ill)
(Leinenweber, J.) (March 29, 2005); see also Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, (7th Cir. 2010). The case is terminated.
Having brought this action, the plaintiff nevertheless remains obligated to pay the full filing fee. Before pursuing any
future litigation, the plaintiff must pay any outstanding fees. All pending motions are denied as moot.

O

[For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.
Mailed AO 450 form.

STATEMENT
The plaintiff, a state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but
has not paid nor seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff has accumulated at least three “strikes.”
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), enacted on April 26, 1996, provides that a prisoner
may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
At least three of the plaintiff’s previous actions have been dismissed in this district on the grounds that
they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., Muhammad
v. Briley, et al. Case No. 02 C 5018, (N.D. Ill.) (Alesia, J.) (August 15, 2002); Muhammad v. County of Cook,
et al. Case No. 02 C 865, (N.D. Ill.) (Alesia, J.) (August 29, 2002); Muhammad v. Walker, et al. Case No. 05 C
1580, (N.D. Ill.) (Leinenweber, J.) (March 29, 2005). In fact, the Court previously advised the plaintiff that he
had “struck out.” See Order of March 10, 2011 in Muhammad v. Ryker, et al.,, Case No. 10 C 991 (S.D. Ill.)
(Gilbert, J.). Notwithstanding his knowledge that he is barred from doing so, the plaintiff has nevertheless sought
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and without disclosing his 1915(g) status to the court. Consequently, the
plaintiff’s effective “fraud” on the court must “lead to immediate termination of the suit.” Sloan v. Lesza, 181
F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999). The complaint is accordingly dismissed with prejudice.
(CONTINUED)
Page 1 of 2

AWL

STATEMENT (continued)
Additionally, the Court notes that this Court warned the plaintiff in it’s order of March 29, 2005, in that he
had failed to notify the Court of all prior litigation he filed, where required in the complaint. Muhammad v. Walker,
et al. Case No. 05 C 1580, (N.D. Ill.) (Leinenweber, J.) The Court further admonished the plaintiff that in failing
to do so, there was a suggestion of fraud on the Court. Id. at p. 5. The plaintiff has again failed to disclose all prior
litigation he has filed in the present complaint. The Court finds that this failure to disclose, in particular when the
plaintiff has previously been admonished is a fraud on the Court, sufficient to merit dismissal of this case with
prejudice. See Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, (7th Cir. 2010).
However, having brought this action, the plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.
§1915(b)(1); Sloan, 181 F.3d at 859. Before pursuing any future litigation, the plaintiff must pay any outstanding
fees. Id.

Page 2 of 2