FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUG 7 , 2006 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 05- 1635 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00094 -CV -6 PAUL MARVIN HOOD, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us WARDEN BILLY TOMPKINS, COMM ISSI ONER JAMES E. DONALD, Geo rg iaDepa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 7, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Paul M. Hood, a

pro se Ge orgia prisoner, appeals the district court’ s order dis m iss ing his 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 c ivi l r igh ts c as e w ith out pr ej udi ce be ca

use H ood pr ovi de d f

al se inf orm at ionon the c om

pla int f orm c onc er nin g hi s pr ior

f ili ng histo ry . Hood checked “ no” in respons e to a question o n the com plaint form
as kin g “ [W ] hil e inc ar ce rate d or de ta ine d at any

f ac ili ty , have y ou b ro ught any law sui ts i n f

ed er al c ourt whic h de al w ithf ac ts o the r than th ose inv olv ed in thi s action? ” A fter a

Magistrate Judge entered a r eport identify ing previou s federa l
ca se s in iti at ed

by H ood that w er e not

dis cl ose d, H ood co nc ed ed that hi s f ili ng histo ry disclosu res w ere incom

plete but the dis trict court still dism issed his case a s
a sanc tio n f

or a buse of the j udi ci al pr oc es s. H ood ap pe al s, c ont en din g th at ( 1) his right to du e process w as violated because he wa s not afforded an evidentiary hearing to determ ine whether he lied on the com plaint form ; (2) the question was
am bigu ous and h e had no reason to lie on the form , a s his prior sui ts had not been dism issed for frivolity

and (3) the court’ s reliance on the Pr ison Litigation Ref orm A ct w as m isp la ce d. Adis tr ic t c ourt m ay

im pose sanc tio ns i f a party

kno w ing ly

f ile s aple ad ing contained false contention s. F ed. R . C iv. P. 11(c). W e re view sanctions im posed pu rs ua ntto Ru le 11 foran ab us e o f di sc ret io n. A ttw ood v. Sin gle tar y , 105 F
. 3d 61 0, 6 12 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (p er cu ria m ).3

Afte r a rev ie w of t he reco rdon ap pe al an d c on si de rat io n o f Hoo d’s b rie f, we fi nd n o a buse of dis cr et ion
. A lth oughsanc tio ns i m pose d un de r Ru le 11 o rd inari ly
re qui re not ic e an d an op portun ity to re spon d pr ior

to the im posi tio n of

sanc tio ns, Ho o dwa s af

fo rd edth e o p p o rt u n i ty t o fi l e o b je ct i o n s t o th e M ag i s tra t e J u d g e’s report, which he did. T he objec tions we re c onsid ered, but the dis trict court w as
co rr ec t t o c onc lud e that t o a llo wH ood to the n a cknow le dge w ha t he sho uld have di sc lo se d e arl ie r wou ldserve to ov erl oo k h is ab us e o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ces s. Se co ndl y , w e ca

nnot c onc lud e that the que sti on o n th e co m pla int f orm a ski ng about prior lawsuits in federal court is am bigu ous. Nor

do we f ind th at the district court’ s refe rence to the Prison Litigation Reform Ac t is im proper. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n indis m iss ing thi s c as e w ith out prej udice. AF FIRMED
.