Moses v. GEO et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER: Moses is ORDERED to show cause within 30 days why sanctions should not be imposed, by filing an affidavit with this court explaining his failure to disclose his litigation history. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 1/8/2018. (crt,Haik, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
DOC # 600226
DOCKET NO. 17-cv-1595
UNASSIGNED DISTRICT JUDGE
GEO, ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY
Before the court is the civil rights complaint [doc. 1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
plaintiff Kelvin Moses, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this matter.
Moses is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
and is currently incarcerated at River Bend Detention Center in Lake Providence, Louisiana. His
complaint relates to events that occurred while he was incarcerated at Allen Correctional Center
(“ALC”) in Kinder, Louisiana.
A prisoner attempting to proceed IFP in a civil action must comply with the mandates of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) for IFP suits, 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915(g), often
referred to as the “three strikes rule,” 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.
Accordingly, the standard complaint form used by Moses, entitled “Prisoner Civil Rights Under
42 U.S.C. § 1983,” warns him of the effect of prior dismissals under § 1915(g). Doc. 1, p. 7. It also
requires him to disclose: 1) whether he has “begun any other lawsuit while incarcerated or
detained in any facility” and 2) whether he had “filed any lawsuit or appeal in any federal
district court or appeals court which has been dismissed.” Id. at 1–2 (emphasis added). Moses
checked “no” for both of these questions and signed the complaint. Id. at 1–2, 7. On his application
to proceed IFP, he declared under penalty of perjury that he had not, while incarcerated, filed any
other suits in federal court that had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. Doc. 5, p. 3.
The court is aware of at least two previous suits filed by Moses in this district while
incarcerated, both of which related to events at ALC. Both suits were dismissed as frivolous and/or
failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and
(ii). 1 See Moses v. Jones, No. 2:15-cv-2264 (W.D. La. Oct. 27, 2016) and Moses v. Unknown
Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-2765 (W.D. La. Jul. 7, 2016). Thus, Moses’s failure to disclose his
litigation history represents a material misrepresentation to the court, as dismissal of this suit under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) would count as his third “strike” under § 1915(g).
When a party fails to provide accurate litigation history, the suit may be dismissed without
prejudice as a sanction for providing fraudulent information to the court. E.g., Hoskins v. Dart,
633 F.3d 541, 543–44 (7th Cir. 2011); Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007). Based on the clear wording
of the complaint form, the recent dismissals of his two prior suits in this district, and the warning
in the complaint of the effect of such dismissals, we can only conclude that Moses acted in
subjective bad faith and intended to mislead the court by not disclosing his litigation history. Such
It appears Moses also filed suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana while incarcerated at the Orleans Community
Correction Center, though that suit was dismissed without prejudice. Williams v. Foti, No. 2:98-cv-2329 (E.D. La.
Dec. 21, 1998).
actions represent an abuse of the judicial system and must be discouraged. Dismissal of the
complaint without prejudice therefore appears warranted to deter repetition of this conduct.
“The imposition of a sanction without a prior warning is generally to be avoided.” Moody
v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, Moses is ORDERED to show cause
within 30 days why sanctions should not be imposed, by filing an affidavit with this court
explaining his failure to disclose his litigation history. If he fails to comply or if this court finds
that his explanation is unsatisfactory, we will recommend that his suit be dismissed without
prejudice and that further sanctions be imposed if Moses files any other action suit in this court
containing misrepresentations as to his litigation history.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 8th day of January, 2018.
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?