Opinion
CV 316-055
07-22-2016
BOBBY RAY GIBBS, Plaintiff, v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; WARDEN VANCE LAUGHLIN; DONAVAN HAMILTON, Deputy Warden; MRS. FNU COKER; and HOMER BRYSON, GDC Commissioner, in their Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate presently incarcerated at Wheeler Correctional Facility in Alamo, Georgia, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP be DENIED (doc. no. 2) and 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"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). 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.The Eleventh Circuit noted that "[t]his 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). Section 1915(g) is constitutional because it does not violate an inmate's right to 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.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal Is Warranted Because Plaintiff Has Three Strikes
A review of Plaintiff's history of filings reveals that he has brought at least three cases that were dismissed for being frivolous or malicious or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: (1) Gibbs v. Maillioux, No. 00-12214-H (11th Cir. 2000) (dismissing appeal as frivolous); (2) Gibbs v. Cail, CV 699-094, doc. nos. 6, 9 (S.D. Ga. June 18, 1999) (dismissing for failing to state a claim); and (3) Gibbs v. Garner, CV 699-181, doc. nos. 6, 9 (S.D. Ga. March 30, 2000) (dismissing for failing to exhaust administrative remedies). See also Gibbs v. Thompson, CV 302-042, doc. no. 3 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 4, 2002) (dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for being a three-striker). Because he has at least three strikes under § 1915(g), Plaintiff cannot proceed IFP in the present case unless he can demonstrate that he qualifies for the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception to § 1915(g).
B. Plaintiff Does Not Qualify for the "Imminent Danger" Exception
In order to come within the imminent danger exception, a prisoner must be in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he files suit in district court. Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff's amended complaint alternatively complains about (1) not being assigned to a transitional center before his release in November, (2) "inhumane" living conditions due to leaking cells, (3) inadequate shoes, and (4) an inadequate number of televisions. None of these conditions amount to imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he should be excused from paying the full filing fee under the "imminent danger" exception to § 1915(g)'s three strike rule. Medberrry, 185 F.3d at 1193.
C. Dismissal Is Also Warranted Because of Plaintiff's Dishonesty
The form complaint that Plaintiff used to commence this case, "Form to Be Used by Prisoners in Filing a Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983," requires that prisoner plaintiffs disclose: (1) whether they have brought other lawsuits dealing with the same facts, (2) whether they have brought r federal lawsuits while incarcerated (3) whether any suit brought IFP was dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1-3.) Plaintiff did not disclose any of his prior cases. (Id.)
The Eleventh Circuit has approved of dismissing a case based on 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; see also Sears v. Haas, 509 F. App'x 935, 936 (11th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of complaint where prisoner plaintiff failed to accurately disclose previous litigation); Redmon v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 414 F. App'x 221, 223, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal, after directing service of process, of amended complaint raising claims that included denial of proper medical care and cruel and unusual punishment for placement in a "restraint chair" and thirty-seven days of solitary confinement upon discovering prisoner plaintiff failed to disclose one prior federal lawsuit); Young v. Secretary Fla. for Dep't of Corr., 380 F. App'x 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal of third amended complaint based on a plaintiff's failure to disclose prior cases on the court's complaint form); Alexander v. Salvador, No. 5:12cv15, 2012 WL 1538368 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2012) (dismissing case alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs where plaintiff failed to disclose new case commenced in interim between filing original complaint and second amended complaint), adopted by Alexander v. Salvador, No. 5:12cv15, 2012 WL 1538336 (N.D. Fla. May 2, 2012).
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). Thus, in not disclosing all of the previous cases as required by the form complaint and instead stating that he had never filed a case before, Plaintiff acted with dishonesty, which provides another basis for dismissal of this case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth below, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP be DENIED (doc. no. 2) and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the claims raised in this lawsuit, he should be required to initiate a new lawsuit, which would require submission of a new complaint. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002).
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.
/s/_________
BRIAN K. EPPS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA