LAGRANDEUR
v.
BROWN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a prisoner's misrepresentation of his litigation history constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, warranting dismissal.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, failed to disclose eight prior lawsuits in his complaint. The magistrate judge ordered him to show cause why the action s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Three Strikes Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Jeffrey Lagrandeur is a Florida state prisoner, and he sues seven state officials. Before ruling on Lagrandeur's pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Magistrate Judge Nicholas Mizell learned Lagrandeur misrepresented his litigation history by omitting eight lawsuits from the relevant section of his Complaint. Judge Mizell ordered Lagrandeur to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for abuse of the judicial process. Lagrandeur did not respond.
Based on the facts set out in Judge Mizell's Order to Show Cause (Doc. 8) and Lagrandeur's failure to respond to that order, the Court finds Lagrandeur abused the judicial process by misrepresenting his litigation history and thereby avoiding potential dismissal under the three-strikes rule
set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Allen v. Clark, 266 F. App'x 815, 817 (11th Cir 2008) (dismissals for failure to prosecute and abuse of the judicial process are considered strikes). The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly found dismissal appropriate when a prisoner misrepresents his litigation history. See Redmon v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 414 F. App’x 221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (prisoner's failure to disclose a prior lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial process); Shelton v. Rohrs, 406 F. App'x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); and Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App'x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (same). The Court will thus dismiss this action without prejudice. Lagrandeur may file a new action, but he must either pay the filing fee or establish an exception to the three-strike rule.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment of dismissal without prejudice, and close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 16, 2024.
Sheri Polster Rappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
2