MURZIKE
v.
HUGHES
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.
In this prisoner civil rights case, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint as malicious and an abuse of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because the plaintiff failed to disclose his prior litigation history on the complaint form despite having received notice of those cases the day before filing.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint as malicious and an abuse of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The plaintiff's failure to disclose prior litigation history on a form signed under penalty of perjury constituted malicious conduct, and the plaintiff's argument that he lacked case numbers was rejected because he received notice of the cases the day before filing and could have referenced them by title or date.
[1] A prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history on a complaint form, when signed under penalty of perjury, constitutes a malicious action.
[2] An action may be dismissed as malicious and an abuse of process under 28 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An action is malicious when a prisoner misrepresents his prior litigation history on a complaint form requiring disclosure of such history and signs the complaint under penalty of perjury.”
Establishes the legal standard for finding a complaint malicious under § 1915A(b)(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Murzike filed a civil complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 15, 2024. The magistrate judge identified …
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 Failure To Disclose Litigation History cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff objection (Doc. 5). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that this case should be dismissed without prejudice as malicious and an abuse of process under 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1) based on Plaintiff's failure to accurately disclose his litigation history. See Burrell v. Warden, 857 F. App'x 624, 625 (11th Cir. 2021) (“An action is malicious when a prisoner misrepresents his prior litigation history on a complaint form requiring disclosure of such history and signs the complaint under penalty of perjury....").
The Court did not overlook Plaintiff's argument that he did not have the case numbers for the two undisclosed cases identified by the magistrate judge when he filed the complaint in this case. However, that argument is belied by the fact that
Plaintiff stated in the objections he filed in the undisclosed cases that he received the R&Rs in those cases on May 14, 2024, see Case No. 3:24cv196, ECF No. 6, at 1; Case No. 3:24cv197, ECF No. 5, at 1, which is the day before he filed the complaint in this case, see Doc. 1 at 1, 33, 34 (indicating that Plaintiff provided the complaint in this case to prison officials for mailing on May 15, 2024). Moreover, even if Plaintiff did not have the case numbers in those cases, he knew that he filed them and he could have referred to them in some other way (e.g., by title, date of filing, etc.) on the complaint form in this case.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious and an abuse of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2024.