Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RAYMOND JOHNSON,

D.O.C. # 421558,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv258-SPM/WCS

C. SIMCOX, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for in forma pauperis status, doc. 2. 

I have reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and the motion. 

In the complaint, Plaintiff makes the statement that he "has supplied the court

with what he beleives [sic] to be a complete listting [sic] of all cases filed in the federal

courts, but by no means should this constitutes [sic] a full listing." Doc. 1, p. 6. 

Plaintiff's statement is insufficient to save him from sanctions for failing to provide a full

and honest listing of his prior cases. While Plaintiff acknowledges fourteen prior cases,

Plaintiff fails to disclose case 4:09cv367 which he initiated in this court last year. That
Page 2 of 4

1

 Plaintiff wrote: "Petitioner has supplied the Court with what he believes to be a

complete listting [sic] of all cases filed in the federal courts, but by no means should this

constitutes [sic] a full listing." Doc. 1, p. 9.

2

 The report and recommendation was adopted, doc. 21, and the case was

dismissed on March 22, 2010. 

Case No. 4:10cv258-SPM/WCS

case was before me and I entered an report and recommendation recommending

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because Plaintiff did not fully disclose all his prior

cases. Plaintiff provided the same statement in that case as he did here, attempting to

absolve himself of his obligation to accurately report his prior litigation.1

In case, 4:09cv367, I pointed out three cases which Plaintiff failed to disclose in

which Plaintiff was barred from preceding in forma pauperis in the federal courts. 

Plaintiff now discloses those three cases I cited to him in the report and

recommendation entered in case 4:09cv367.2

 See doc. 1, p. 6. Plaintiff lists the

following three cases and states: 5:02cv343 was "dismissed as barred;" case

1:01cv4001 was "dismissed" and he states case 1:01cv4923 was "dismissed as

barred." Doc. 1, p. 6. Plaintiff fails to fully disclose, however, that case 5:02cv343 was

"dismissed as barred" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); case 1:01cv4001 was dismissed

under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim; and case 1:01cv4923 was

dismissed as barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Those three cases, along with case

4:09cv367 which was dismissed solely on the basis that Plaintiff did not completely and

accurately disclosed all prior cases, reveal that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in this

Court with in forma pauperis status as Plaintiff is fully aware. See Rivera v. Allin, 144

F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998) (permitting a case to be dismissed with a "strike" for

failing to truthfully or completely disclose prior lawsuits). 
Page 3 of 4

Case No. 4:10cv258-SPM/WCS

Plaintiff's "notice" that his listing may not be correct is insufficient to warrant

continuing this case. It is Plaintiff's obligation and responsibility to keep a correct listing

of cases, the reason for dismissal and the like. It is not the Court's duty to do so for

Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to honestly and completely disclose that his cases

were dismissed as barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff's motion for in forma

pauperis status, doc. 2, must be denied.

Plaintiff in this case complains about medical care. Plaintiff is not under

"imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, he is

not entitled to in forma pauperis status, and Plaintiff is well aware of that fact. Section

1915(g) does not bar Plaintiff from filing civil actions; it merely prohibits him from

enjoying in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff "still has the right to file suits if he pays the

full filing fees in advance, just like everyone else." Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818,

821 (5th Cir. 1997); see also, Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 765 (8th Cir. 1997); Hains v.

Washington, 131 F.3d 1248, 1250 (7th Cir. 1997); Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429,

434-36 (7th Cir. 1997). If Plaintiff desire to re-file this action, Plaintiff must pay the

$350.00 filing fee.

RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, doc. 2, be DENIED, and this case be DISMISSED as barred by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), and because Plaintiff failed to honestly disclose all prior cases, and 
Page 4 of 4

Case No. 4:10cv258-SPM/WCS

the ORDER granting this report and recommendation direct the Clerk of Court to note

on the docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 14, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.