1York has informed the Court of a new on-the-street address.

2The U.S. Party Case Index reveals 5 prior suits filed by William York

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: York v. Ciy of Hurst Police Department, No. 4:03-CV-1188-

A (§ 1983 complaint dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)); York v.

Anderson, No. 4:03-CV-1189-Y (§ 1983 complaint dismissed without prejudice); York

v. Anderson, No.4:03-CV-1190-Y (§ 1983 complaint dismissed without prejudice);

York v. Vargas, No.4:03-CV-1191-Y (§ 1983 Complaint dismissed without prejudice);

York v. City of Fort Worth-Mansfield Holding Facility, No.4:03-CV-1192-A (§ 1983

complaint dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

WILLIAM YORK §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-655-Y

§

SIMON GONZALEZ, §

Magistrate, et al. §

 

 OPINION and ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a pro-se, civil-rights action filed by former Tarrant

County jail inmate William York.1 As a part of its screening of

York’s complaint, the Court has reviewed Court records concerning

whether he has previously sought relief in federal court, and

discovered that he has.2 Nevertheless, in his complaint in this

action, to the question “Have you ever filed any other lawsuit in

state or federal court relating to your imprisonment?,” Plaintiff

answered, “No.” (Compl. ¶ I(A).) He did this, even though he had

sworn under penalty of perjury that all facts presented in his

complaint were true and correct, and even though he was expressly

warned that “any false or deliberately misleading information

provided . . . will result in the imposition of sanctions . . .

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00655-Y Document 9 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 30
3A federal district court has inherent authority to manage its affairs and

preserve the authority of the court, including the power to sanction a party. See

Scaife v. Associated Air Center, Inc., 100 F.3d 406, 411 (5th Cir. 1996), citing

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991); see also Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc.,

57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995). Such power must be exercised with restraint,

and should be confined to instances of “bad faith or willful abuse of the

judicial process.” Woodson, 57 F.3d at 1417 (citations omitted). 

2

[including] monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of this action with

prejudice.” (Compl. at 5.) 

The Court directed York to show cause why he should not be

sanctioned.3 On May 25, 2006, York filed a response to the Order to

Show Cause. In that document, York writes that “he apparently

suffered a lapse of memory” due to the his mental anxiety about the

conditions of his confinement. (May 25, 2006, Response.) Although

the tone of York’s response causes the Court to believe that he has

not deliberately misled the Court, the fact remains that York

provided false information, under penalty of perjury, by failing to

list the prior lawsuits previously filed in “federal court relating

to [his] imprisonment.” The question about prior lawsuits in the

form complaint is phrased broadly, and the phrase “any” is placed

in italics. The wording of that question, combined with the express

warning later in the form against not providing any “false or

deliberately misleading information,” alerts a pro-se prisoner of

the obligation to be completely forthright in supplying information

about suits relating to imprisonment, including all prior suits

under § 1983 and § 2254. As a result, the Court determines that,

consistent with the express warning in bold print in the form

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00655-Y Document 9 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 31
4Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 196 (5th Cir. 1993).

3

complaint completed by York, he should be subjected to the

imposition of sanctions. 

This Court is mindful of its duty to “impose the least severe

sanction adequate”4 to fashion a remedy against York. A prisoner

proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to have the substance of

the allegations in his complaint reviewed by the Court under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). The questions in the complaint

form about prior suits are included to help the Court engage in

this process and to determine if the particular litigant’s suitfiling history will bar or otherwise relate to that substantive

review. When an inmate frustrates the Court’s desire to obtain

those facts by providing false information, he must suffer the

consequence of not immediately obtaining that substantive review.

Any sanction short of dismissal of the case would enable an informa-pauperis litigant, such as York, who has provided false

information, to nevertheless gain his desired review of the newly

submitted claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). 

The Court has considered a monetary sanction and found that it

would not be effective in this case. York’s inmate-account

certification shows that he did not have any financial resources

for the several months prior to the filing of this suit. If the

Court were to merely assess a monetary sanction against York but

nevertheless review the substantive grounds asserted in this latest

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00655-Y Document 9 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 32
5If York chooses to refile another suit, he will need to either seek to

proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the now applicable filing fee of $350.00.

6This dismissal is not a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

4

case, such sanction would do nothing to deter York (and other

prisoners in his position) from answering the Court’s question

falsely. If the Court were to accompany the assessment of a

monetary sanction with dismissal of the case and a bar from filing

another suit until the monetary assessment were paid, however, such

sanction might effectively bar York from filing altogether, which

would be too severe. Thus, the Court concludes that the

appropriate sanction in this case is dismissal of this action

without prejudice to York’s right to refile.5

 Therefore, as a sanction for providing false information to

the Court in a sworn pleading, the above-styled and numbered action

is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.6

 SIGNED July 5, 2006.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00655-Y Document 9 Filed 07/05/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 33