FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 7, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1405 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 07-01782 -CV -RL V- 1 COR NE LI US MAR TIN, II, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, MIC HAEL Z ENK, X. SHUMAN, HECTOR LOPEZ, I n d i v i du a l l y, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 7, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant C or

ne liu s M ar

tin , I I, apr o se f

ed er al pr iso ne r, appe al s the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of his c om pla int , w hic h r ai se d c la im s un de r the Fe de ra l T ort C la im s A ct

( “ FT CA ”) , 28 U
. S. C. § 26 71 e t se q. , and B ive ns v . S ix Unk no wn Nam edAgen ts of t he Fed . Bur eau of Na rco ti cs , 91 S.Ct . 19 99 (19 71 ). Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i s m i s s ed th e c o m p l ai n twi t h o u tp re

ju d i ce b ec au s e M ar t i n ’s al le gatio n of

pov er ty w as untru e, 28 U
. S. C. § 19 15( e) (2 )( A ). N o r ev er sib le e rr or h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Martin’ s FT CA claim

stem m ed from an injury he rec eived when he tripped
on a sid ew al k a t the F ed er al P ri son Cam p A tlanta , w he re he w as hou se d. H e al so al le ge d, und er

Bi ve ns, that he r ec ei ve d in ad equa te m ed ic al c ar e fo r thi s in j ur y in vio la tio n of

the E igh th A m en dm en t. W ithhis c om pla int , on 2 6 Ju ly

200 7, Mart in subm itt ed an a ff idavit of ind ige nc y , da te d 22 May 200 7, w hic h in dic at ed

he
re ce ive d $2 00 a

m onth f ro m f ri en ds and r el at ive s; and a s of the da te of

the af fi da vit ’ s e xe cu tio n, he ha d $3 3. 36 i n hi s pr iso n bank a cc ount . H is p ri son tr ust fund account statem ent -- r un on 24 May

2007 althoug h it was supposed to cover the six-m onth period im

m ediately prece ding the filing of his com plaint, 28 U. S. C. § 19 15( a) (2 )
-- not ed

that he ha d r ec ei ve d atot al of $1, 818 in d ep osi ts i n th e pr ev iou s si x m onths and h ad am ax im um ba lanc e of

$35 8. 61 i n th e pr ec ed ing 303

day s. H is ave ra ge ba lanc e fo r the six -m onth pe ri od o f the state m en t w as $23 3. 56
w hil e the a ve ra ge m onthly de posi t w as $30 3. Mart in h ad

sub m itt ed

the ide nti ca l a ff

idavit and p ri son tr

ust f und ac co unt state m en t i n anothe r ci vil a ct ion- - Mart in v
. Z en k, 1:0 6- CV -3 065 (N
. D
. G a. 200 7) -- f iled in the sam e fe deral district and assigned to the sam e fe deral district court j udge. In Mar

tin v. Ze nk, the district court concluded th at Martin w as unentitled to p ro ce ed in f

orm a pa upe ris and dism issed Martin’ s com plaint withou t prej udice: A lth oughit

is tr ue that a s of

May 22, 200 7, the pla int if

f ha d on ly

$33
. 36 i n his a cc ount , the pr iso n r ec or ds s howthat he ha d de posi ts o f $181 8. 00 i n th e pr ec ed ing six m onths and h ad am ax im um ba lanc e of

$35 8. 61 i n th e pr ec ed ing 30 d ay s. T he c ourt f ind s th at pla int if f ha d su ff ic ie nt f unds to prosecute this action b ut chose to sp end thos e funds on m atters other than thi s li tig at ion
. This Court aff

irm ed that dism issal stating that the dism issal without p rej udice was p r o p e r i n th e l i g h to f

M a rt i n ’s f

a i l u r e t o d e mo n s t r a t e p o v e rt y. Inthe ins tant s uit , Mart in a ga in s ough t l eave to pr oc ee d w ith out the pr ep ay m en t of f ee s or c ost s purs uant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 19 15( a) (1 ) cl ai m ing that hi s pove rty r en de re d hi m

una ble to m ak e the r equir ed

paym en ts. I n su

ppor t of his
re que st, Mart in s ubm itt ed the ve ry sam e doc um en ts tha t he ha d su bm itt ed in Martin v. Z enk and on which the dis trict court had ruled -- a ruling we later af fi rm ed - - that the a lle ga tio n of

pov er ty w as untru e. A ga in b ec au se the a lle ga tio nAlthough the district court’s dism issal was without prejudice , it may be that his FTCA c laim was 1 time-barr ed on the date of d i s m i s s al
. M artin filed his complaint i n J uly 2007, and the limitations pe ri od se e ms to ha

ve e xpir e d on his F TCAc la im i n Augus t 20 07 , s ix months a ft e r t he de nia l of

his last administrative appe al. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). But beca use Martin has advanc ed no argument that the district court dismissal operated to prejudice his FTCA cla im, we do not a ddress the import of prej ud ice , if a

ny e xists . A lso we make no int imatio ns a bo ut p re jud ic e on Mart in’ s B ive ns c la im. Fr om his complaint, itis unclear when the statute of limitations bega n. 4 of pov er ty w as untru e, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d M ar tinle av e to p ro ce ed in fo rma paup er is . N oting the com pulso ry language of section 19 15(e)(2)( A) that a fe deral
co urt “ sha ll dis m iss ” a pr oc ee din g in f orm a pa upe ris “ at any

tim e if the c ourt determ ines that the allegation of poverty is untrue,” the district court dism issed Martin’ s case w ithou t prej udice. 1 Mart in c om

pla ins that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by not giv ing him

the oppo rt uni ty to expla in the de ple tio n inhis a cc ount ; and i n su ppor t of his arg um en t, Martin cites Collier v. Tatum , 722 F. 2d 65 3 (11 Cir. 1983 ). Collier w as decided th under a previous version of the IF P statute -- then 28 U.S .C. § 1915 (d) -- which pr ovi de d th at

the c ourt “ m ay

dis m iss the c as e if

the a lle ga tio n of

pov er ty is untrue.” See Cam

p v. O liver, 798 F. 2d 43 4, 437 (11 Cir. 1986 ) (noting that th

“ [u ]n d erth e c l ea r a n du n amb i g u o u s l an g u ag e o f [ fo rmer s ec t i o n 1 9 1 5 (d )], dism issal is no t m andatory , but discretionary .” ). U nder that version of the statute, Co lli er sa id tha t w he re de cr ea se s inapr iso ne r’ s tr ust a cc ount are c onsi de re d to be
a ba sis f or de nia l of ind ige nt s ta tus , “ the pr iso ne r shou ld b e giv ensom e re as ona ble5

oppo rtunity , a fter a

ppropriate notice, to explain and refute any finding to that effe ct.” Id. at 656 (quoti ng Evans v. Cr oom , 650 F. 2d 52 1, 527 (4 Cir. 1981 )). th A ssu m ing arg ue ndo that C oll ie r ap pli es to the r ev ise d I FP statut e de spi te the use of the com

pulso ry “ shall dis m iss” language ov er the now- discarded pe rm iss ive “ m ay

dis m iss ” langua ge , w e se e no r ev er sib le e rr or . Mart in i s no t unf am ili ar w iththe r

ule s a ppl ic ab le to in fo rma paup er is appl ic at ion s. A nd Martin w as on noti ce f

rom his earlier subm issio n of these docum ents that they fa ile d to sup port hi s a lle ga tio ns o f pove rty . F ull y a dvi se d of

the ina de qua cy

of thi s a ff idavit and p ri son tr

ust state m en t t o e sta

bli sh i ndi ge nc y , Mart in r el ie d on the se doc um en ts w ith out a ddi ng e xpl an at ionor

oth er w ise se ek ing to re fu te the district court’ s earlier

rej ection of these m aterials in Martin v. Ze nk. Whatever pr oc es s m ay

be r equir ed

to as sur e that a

li tig an t ha s af

ull and f ai r oppo rt uni ty to be heard, no litig ant is entitled to be heard on the sam e question o ver and over ag ai n. AFFIRMED.