United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted October 6, 2021*

Decided October 7, 2021 

Before 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 21-1678 

DONALD HAYWOOD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., 

et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois. 

No. 21-CV-1089-MMM 

Michael M. Mihm, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Donald Haywood, an Illinois prisoner, sought leave to file this suit, which 

challenges his conditions of confinement, without prepaying the filing fees. The district 

court dismissed the case with prejudice after it found that Haywood had lied about his 

income and spent down his account balance to obtain “in forma pauperis” status under 

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 21-1678 Page 2 

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because the court did not clearly err when it found that Haywood lied 

and manipulated his funds to avoid paying a filing fee, and it did not abuse its 

discretion in dismissing the suit with prejudice, we affirm. 

Seeking a favorable exercise of discretion under § 1915, Haywood submitted an 

affidavit, signed as true under the penalty of perjury, describing his assets and “any 

money” from “any” sources over the last 12 months. He also furnished a copy of the 

ledger for his inmate trust fund covering the last six months, certified by prison staff. In 

his affidavit Haywood swore that his only income was “occasional small monetary 

gifts” from friends and family. His trust fund ledger revealed these gifts to total $430.00 

over the last six months. The ledger also revealed recent income from another source 

that he excluded from his affidavit: a $1,200.00 stimulus check. It further revealed that 

Haywood spent most of his money in the month before he filed his complaint. 

The district court found that Haywood had both lied about his income and spent 

down his balance to avoid paying a filing fee. It first observed that Haywood has failed 

to disclose his full income in other cases. See, e.g., Haywood v. Wexford Health Sources, 

Inc., No. 16-3566 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2016) (failed to disclose $960.00 in income); Haywood 

v. Rendor, No. 11-388 (S.D. Ill. May 10, 2011) (failed to disclose $585.00 in income). One 

of those cases was dismissed with prejudice after he hid $1,630.00 in income and spent 

almost all the money in his trust fund account four days before filing a complaint. 

Haywood v. Renzi, No. 19-1242 (C.D. Ill. July 16, 2019). The district court then ordered 

Haywood to show cause why it should not sanction him for misleading the court and 

dissipating his funds. Haywood responded that he had mental illnesses, a fellow inmate 

helped him with the affidavit of indigency, which he said he did not fully understand, 

and he cannot remember numbers. The court rejected these arguments based on 

Haywood’s pattern of underreporting his income. It then dismissed the case with 

prejudice and assessed a “strike” under § 1915(g). 

On appeal, Haywood challenges the dismissal, offering unpersuasive reasons 

why, in his view, his affidavit was not deceptive. He repeats that he has mental health 

problems and difficulty understanding forms and recalling numbers. We review for 

clear error the district court’s factual finding that Haywood lied in his affidavit of 

indigency. See Thomas v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305, 307–08 (7th Cir. 

2002). No clear error occurred here. First, the district court could reasonably deem the 

stimulus check memorable. Haywood received it just four months before he sued, and it 

dwarfed all his other income. It was eight times larger than his next largest deposit, 

larger than all the previous deposits on his ledger combined, and almost tripled his 
No. 21-1678 Page 3 

account balance. Second, no evidence suggests that his mental deficits prevented him 

from recalling this deposit (even if its exact amount eluded him) or understanding that 

the affidavit required that he tell the truth about his income. Haywood separately 

argues that, because he sent his trust-fund ledger along with his affidavit, he did not 

intend to deceive. But the district judge was entitled to rely on the truthfulness of his 

signed affidavit, separate from any unsworn submission from a prison officer. 

See Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443 (7th Cir. 2016) (“A litigant can't say, ‘I know 

how the judge should rule, so I'm entitled to conceal material information from him.’”). 

In any case, apart from the omission, the district court did not clearly err in 

making a second finding that justified dismissal: Haywood dissipated his funds before 

filing his complaint. Prisoners may not intentionally deplete their trust accounts just to 

avoid paying filing fees. Robertson v. French, 949 F.3d 347, 353–54 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing 

Sultan v. Fenoglio, 775 F.3d 888, 891 (7th Cir. 2015)). Haywood does not offer, let alone 

substantiate, any legitimate reason for spending down to the point of indigency the 

funds in his prison account right before filing this suit. 

Haywood next contends that the district court should not have dismissed his 

case with prejudice. Under § 1915(e)(2)(A), a court must dismiss a case if it finds that a 

plaintiff lied about his ability to pay. See Robertson, 949 F.3d at 351–52. The court has 

discretion to do so with or without prejudice. See Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co.,

133 F.3d 546, 547–48 (7th Cir. 1998). In arguing that the district court abused its 

discretion, Haywood cites Greyer v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 933 F.3d 871, 882 (7th Cir. 

2019). In that case, we vacated a dismissal with prejudice in part because the district 

court did not ask whether the plaintiff’s mental health explained why he omitted some 

litigation history. But as we already explained, Haywood’s mental health cannot excuse 

his deception. Furthermore, in Greyer the request for litigation history was vague, the 

plaintiff was nearly illiterate, the omissions were not material, and the district court did 

not find that they were intentional. Id. at 875–80. Here, the affidavit was clear (it told 

Haywood to list “any” income from “any” source), he is literate, the amount excluded 

was material (more than double the filing fee), and the court reasonably found that the 

omission was intentional. Given all this, plus his past behavior of omitting accurate 

information, dismissal with prejudice was permissible. See Thomas, 288 F.3d at 307 

(noting that dismissal with prejudice may be the only feasible sanction when a litigant 

tries to defraud the court). 

We end with a housekeeping matter. In dismissing the suit, the district court 

stated that Haywood would receive a “strike” for this case under § 1915(g). A strike is 
No. 21-1678 Page 4 

incurred only when an inmate’s case is dismissed “based on the grounds listed in 

§ 1915(g).” Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005, 1012 (7th Cir. 2010). Those grounds are 

frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim. Id. They do not include 

dismissal because a plaintiff lied about his poverty. Nonetheless, the district court’s 

comment does not warrant modification of the judgment because it does not have any 

current effect. See Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 2002). Haywood’s strikes 

will not be counted until he has had three cases dismissed on grounds enumerated by 

§ 1915(g), and then the court in which he files his fourth suit will need to review each of 

his prior dismissals and determine retrospectively whether they count as strikes. Id.; 

see also Hill v. Madison County, 983 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2020). 

We have reviewed Haywood’s other arguments, and none has merit. 

AFFIRMED