Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

FRANCIS STONE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00159-MP-GRJ

MARTHA HUMPHRIES, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate serving a life sentence in the custody of the Florida

Department of Corrections, initiated this case by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C § 1983 (Doc. 1) and paying the filing fee. Now pending before the Court

are Doc. 22, Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal Based on Plaintiff’s

Failure to Disclose Prior Filings, and Doc. 23, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the

Complaint. The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining

order and deferred a ruling on his motion for a preliminary injunction pending a

response to the motion. Docs. 14, 20. For the following reasons, the undersigned

recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted, that Plaintiff’s pending motions be

denied, and that this case be dismissed without prejudice for abuse of the judicial

process.

Plaintiff executed the civil rights complaint form under penalty of perjury. Doc. 1

at 13. Plaintiff alleges that he is a member of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club and

that he has been incarcerated for approximately 24 years. Plaintiff alleges that during

his incarceration he received mail from other Hells Angels members without incident
Page 2 of 5

until June 2009, when he was transferred temporarily to the Central Florida Reception

Center (CFRC) from Mayo Correctional Institution. The CFRC mailroom returned mail

sent to Plaintiff by Hells Angels members. Plaintiff alleges that following his return to

Mayo the Warden informed him that mail from Hells Angels members would not be

delivered to Plaintiff because it was gang material and posed a threat to the institution.

Plaintiff alleges that the restriction on his mail violates his First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against prison

officials and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections. Id. at 5-13.

Section IV of the Court’s civil rights complaint form requires prisoners to disclose

information regarding previous lawsuits and warns that “failure to disclose all prior civil

cases may result in the dismissal of this case. If you are unsure of any prior cases you

have filed, that fact must be disclosed as well.” Id. at 3. Section IV. A. requires

prisoners to disclose whether they have initiated other actions in state court “dealing

with the same or similar fact/issues involved in this action.” Plaintiff checked “No.” Id. 

Section IV. C. requires prisoners to disclose whether they have initiated actions in either

state or federal court relating to the fact or manner of incarceration or the conditions of

confinement. Plaintiff again checked “No.” Id. at 4. 

Defendants contend that this case should be dismissed without prejudice

because Plaintiff failed to exercise candor and honesty in completing the civil rights

complaint form. As support for the motion, Defendants note that Plaintiff previously

filed an action in state court arising from Avon Park Correctional Institution’s refusal to

deliver various publications and personal letters which either contained materials from

or referred to the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club. See Stone v. Ward, 752 So.2d 100

Case No: 1:10-cv-00159-MP-GRJ
Page 3 of 5

(Fla. 2 DCA 2000) (affirming trial court’s denial of petition for mandamus alleging that

nd

prison wrongfully refused to deliver mail bearing the Hells Angels logo). Defendants

contend that Plaintiff’s failure to disclose the prior state case contravenes the clear

disclosure requirement of the Court’s form. Defendants argue that the facts underlying

Plaintiff’s prior state case support a conclusion that Plaintiff’s sworn allegation in this

case – that Plaintiff had no problem receiving Hells Angels mail until 2009 – is patently

false. Defendants contend that dismissal is an appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s

dishonesty. Doc. 22.

Plaintiff has been afforded sufficient time to respond to the motion to dismiss. 

Rather than responding to the arguments in the motion, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave

to amend the complaint, contending that in the interests of justice he should be allowed

to amend to “cure defects” in the complaint. Doc. 23. 

In the absence of any basis for excusing a plaintiff’s lack of candor, failure to

disclose previous lawsuits as clearly required on the Court’s prisoner civil rights

complaint form warrants dismissal of the complaint for abuse of the judicial process. 

See Redmon v. Lake County Sheriff’s Office, No. 10-11070, 2011 WL 576601 *4 (11th

Cir. Feb. 10, 2011). In Redmon, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a 1

prisoner’s civil rights complaint that did not disclose a previous lawsuit. The plaintiff

argued that he “misunderstood” the form, but the Court held that the district court had

the discretion to conclude that the plaintiff’s explanation did not excuse his

misrepresentation because the complaint form “clearly asked Plaintiff to disclose

Pursuant to 11 Cir. Rule 36-2, unpublished opinions are not binding precedent 1 th

but may be cited as persuasive authority.

Case No: 1:10-cv-00159-MP-GRJ
Page 4 of 5

previously filed lawsuits[.]” Id. The Court determined that dismissal was an

appropriate sanction:

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “[a] finding that the plaintiff engaged in bad faith

litigiousness or manipulative tactics warrants dismissal.” Attwood v.

Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir.1997). In addition, a district court

may impose sanctions if a party knowingly files a pleading that contains

false contentions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c). Although pro se pleadings are held

to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys, a

plaintiff's pro se status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural

rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1984,

124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993).

Id.

2

In addition to revealing whether a prisoner is subject to the PLRA’s “three strikes”

provision, the information required on the form assists the Court in efficiently managing

prisoner litigation by showing whether a complaint is related to or is affected by another

case. The failure to exercise candor in completing the form, while acknowledging that

the answers are made under penalty of perjury, impedes the Court in managing its

caseload and merits the sanction of dismissal. See Redmon, 2011 WL 576601, at *4;

Johnson v. Crawson, No. 5:08-cv-300, 2010 WL 1380247, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 3,

2010) (“If Plaintiff suffered no penalty for his untruthful responses, there would be little

or no disincentive for his attempt to evade or undermine the purpose of the form.

Furthermore, if word spread around the prisons that the questions on the complaint

form could be circumvented in such a manner, the court might be confronted with

Plaintiff in this case is not proceeding as a pauper under 28 U.S.C § 1915, but

2

his complaint remains subject to the PLRA’s screening provision. The PLRA permits

dismissal of a complaint “in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity

or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” on the basis that the complaint is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, regardless whether the Plaintiff has paid

the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C § 1915A.

Case No: 1:10-cv-00159-MP-GRJ
Page 5 of 5

widespread abuse from its many prisoner litigants.”); Paulcin v. McNeil, No. 3:09-cv151, 2009 WL 2432684, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2009) (“If the court cannot rely on the

statements or responses made by the parties, it threatens the quality of justice. The

court will not tolerate false responses or statements in any pleading or motion filed

before it.”).

Plaintiff has offered no reason for failing to disclose his prior case, which plainly

pertains directly to the claims asserted in the instant complaint. The requirements of

the complaint form are clear, and Plaintiff does not contend otherwise. The

undersigned therefore concludes that Plaintiff has abused the judicial process, and that

dismissal is an appropriate sanction for such abuse.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 14, be DENIED;

2. That Plaintiff’s motion to amend, Doc. 23, be DENIED;

3. That Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 22, be GRANTED and that this

case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915A.

.

IN CHAMBERS this 5 day of April 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

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.

Case No: 1:10-cv-00159-MP-GRJ