Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JEAN BERTON SAINT-FLEUR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-457-MP-GRJ

WARDEN LANE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

of Corrections, initiated this case by filing a pro se, in forma pauperis civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff claims he was subjected to an

alleged use of excessive force while he was incarcerated at Jefferson Correctional

Institution. The case is before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C §

1915A. For the reasons discussed below, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed for abuse of the judicial process. 

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

at 10. Section IV of the Court’s civil rights complaint form requires prisoners to

disclose information regarding previous lawsuits. Id. at 5. Section IV. B. requires

prisoners to disclose whether they have initiated actions in federal court “dealing with

the same or similar facts involved in this action or otherwise relating to [the plaintiff’s]

imprisonment or conditions thereof.” Plaintiff checked “yes,” and identified one prior

case: Saint Fleur v. Archie Brights, et al, Case No. 8:03-cv-824 (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff

Case 4:10-cv-00457-MP-GRJ Document 25 Filed 08/11/11 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

represented that the case concerned a discrimination claim, and that the case “was

dismissed, appealed and remanded in full by the Eleventh Circuit but Plaintiff was

unable to continue prosecution.” Id. at 5. 

Section IV. D. of the complaint form requires prisoners to disclose whether they

have “initiated lawsuits or appeals from lawsuits in federal court that have been

dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” and if so to identify each case and its disposition. Plaintiff responded “not

applicable.” Id. at 5-6.

A review of the Court’s PACER Case Locator reflects that the one case identified

by Plaintiff did not terminate in the manner described by Plaintiff in the instant

Complaint. The docket for that case reflects that it was dismissed for failure to pay the

filing fee; Plaintiff appealed and the case was reinstated after the district court notified

the Court of Appeals that the filing fee had been paid. The case was dismissed again

for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff failed to complete the service forms, but was

reopened on Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The court directed

service on the Defendants, who filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted because Plaintiff failed to comply with

the administrative exhaustion requirement of 42 U.S.C § 1997e. Plaintiff opposed the

motion to dismiss, but the district court granted the motion and dismissed the case for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Saint Fleur v. Archie Brights,

et al, Case No. 8:03-cv-824, Doc. 40 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2007). Plaintiff did not appeal.

Thus, in the instant Complaint, Plaintiff both misstated the disposition of this

case in Section IV C, and failed to truthfully respond in Section IV D regarding whether

Case No: 4:10-cv-457-MP-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00457-MP-GRJ Document 25 Filed 08/11/11 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

previous cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

The Court’s PACER review also reflects that Plaintiff filed a prisoner civil rights

case that he wholly failed to disclose in the instant Complaint. That case was

dismissed by the district court upon initial screening for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. See Saint-Fleur v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., Case No. 8:99-cv-2097, Doc. 2 (M.D.

Fla. Sept. 22, 1999).

Rather than simply recommending the dismissal of this case for abuse of the

judicial process the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on April 8, 2011 ordering

Plaintiff to show cause on or before April 22, 2011 why his case should not be

dismissed for abuse of the judicial process. Plaintiff filed a response to the show cause

order after the Court’s deadline had passed. (Doc. 20). In Plaintiff’s response, filed

April 27, 2011, he cited the passage of time, lack of access to technology that other

litigators have for record keeping, and that because he is in the Department of

Corrections and subject to searches, “there is no possibility of keeping as precise of

records as that of this court.” (Doc. 20).

The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s lack of candor should be excused. In

the instant Complaint, Plaintiff both misstated the disposition of this case in Section IV

C, and failed to truthfully respond in Section IV D regarding whether previous cases

were dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court’s PACER review also reflects that

Plaintiff filed a prisoner civil rights case that he wholly failed to disclose in the instant

Complaint. 

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

disclose and truthfully describe previous lawsuits as clearly required on the Court’s

Case No: 4:10-cv-457-MP-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00457-MP-GRJ Document 25 Filed 08/11/11 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

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 (11 Cir. Feb. 10, 2011). In Redmon, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the th 1

dismissal of a 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

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.

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;

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

but may be cited as persuasive authority.

Case No: 4:10-cv-457-MP-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00457-MP-GRJ Document 25 Filed 08/11/11 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

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

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.”).

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED:

1. This cause should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28

U.S.C § 1915A.

2. The dismissal of this case should count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C §

1915(g). 

IN CHAMBERS this 11 day of August 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), 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: 4:10-cv-457-MP-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00457-MP-GRJ Document 25 Filed 08/11/11 Page 5 of 5