WOLFE

v.

RAMBOSK

KEVIN J. RAMBOSK and COLLIER COUNTY JAIL,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER1

Plaintiff Matthew Michael Chandler Wolfe (“Wolfe”), an inmate in the Florida Prison System, instituted this action by filing a pro se Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 (Doc. 1).

Wolfe seeks to proceed in forma pauperis on his Complaint. (Doc. 11).

Because the Court finds the Complaint is subject to dismissal without prejudice, the Court will neither grant Wolfe in forma pauperis status, nor assess the $350 court filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

Wolfe asserts Defendants have violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide essential legal supplies and documents, refusing to allow him to contact witnesses and/or attorneys, rejecting certain mail, and not providing the means for him to store and examine electronic data. (Doc. 1 at 6-7).

Based on these allegations, it appears

Section III of the form requires prisoners to disclose information about previous lawsuits. (Id. at 2). Specifically, it asks whether Plaintiff has “initiated other lawsuits in federal court dealing with the same or similar facts involved in this action or otherwise relating to your imprisonment or conditions thereof?” (Id. at ¶ B) (emphasis in original). In response to the question Plaintiff checked “no.” (Id.). The Court takes judicial notice that before commencing this action, Plaintiff filed these cases in the Middle District of Florida: 2:18-cv-00589-FtM-SPC-CM (filed August 31, 2018); 2:18-cv-00609-FtM-JES-CM (filed September 10, 2018-dismissed for failure to state a claim); 2:18-cv-00730-FtM-SPC-NM (filed October 31, 2018); and 2:18-cv- 00731-FtM-SPC-CM (filed October 31, 2018-dismissed for failure to state a claim). Contrary to Plaintiff’s sworn responses, he has filed other lawsuits in federal court related to his “imprisonment or conditions thereof.” The inquiry about a prisoner’s prior lawsuits is neither a matter of idle curiosity, nor is it an effort to raise meaningless obstacles to a prisoner’s access to the courts. Rather, the existence of prior litigation initiated by a prisoner is required for the Court to apply 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) (the “three strikes rule” applicable to prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis).

And it has been the Court’s experience that a significant number of prisoner filings assert claims or issues already raised in prior litigation. Identification of that prior litigation often enables the Court to dispose of the successive case without further expenditure of finite judicial resources. Plaintiff’s failure to disclose and truthfully describe previous lawsuits required on the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form warrants dismissal for abuse of the judicial process. See Redmon v. Lake County Sheriff’s Office, 414 F. App’x 221, 225 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011).

In Redmon, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a prisoner’s civil rights complaint that did not disclose a previous lawsuit. The Court determined that dismissal was an appropriate sanction: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “[a] finding that the plaintiff engaged in bad faith litigiousness or manipulative tactics warrants dismissal.” Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F. 3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997).

In addition, a district court may impose sanctions if a party knowingly files a pleading that contains false contentions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

Although pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys, a plaintiff's pro se status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S. Ct. 1980, 1984, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993).

Id. Failing to exercise candor in completing the form, while acknowledging that the answers are made under penalty of perjury, impedes the Court in managing its caseload and merits the sanction of dismissal. The complaint form asks whether Plaintiff had filed other lawsuits “relating to your imprisonment or conditions thereof.” (Doc. 1 at 2).

He falsely said “no.” Because Plaintiff filed his other lawsuits within the last two years, the Court finds his false statement was made knowingly and with bad faith.

Therefore, Plaintiff's denial and failure to disclose his previous lawsuits, under penalty of perjury, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. See Rivera v. Allin, 144 F. 3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998). Dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate sanction here. See id.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for abuse of the judicial process. This dismissal counts as Plaintiff’s “third strike” under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

2. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 11) is DENIED.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment, terminate any pending motions, and close this file.

4. The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with a blank civil rights complaint should he wish to file a new action. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 19th day of May, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record