Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RAY CHRIS MOBLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-172-RH-GRJ

LT BROCK, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, and

seeks leave to proceed as a pauper. Docs. 1 & 2. At the time that the Complaint was

filed, Plaintiff was an inmate in the Putnam County, Georgia, jail, but he has since been

released. 

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

at 7. Section IV of the Court’s civil rights complaint form requires prisoners to disclose

information regarding previous lawsuits, including whether they have initiated other

actions in state or federal court dealing with the same or similar facts involved in the

instant case, whether they have initiated other cases dealing with the fact or manner of

their incarceration (including habeas corpus petitions), and whether any federal cases

have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, for failure to state a claim, or prior to

service. In response to these questions, Plaintiff identified thirteen prior state and

federal cases. Plaintiff responded “no” to the question whether he had ever had any

actions in federal court dismissed as frivolous, malicious, for failure to state a claim, or

prior to service. Id. at 4. 

Case 5:11-cv-00172-RH-GRJ Document 9 Filed 12/29/11 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

A review of the Court’s docket reflects that Plaintiff had in fact filed 34 cases in

this District alone as of the date that the instant Complaint was filed, on June 6, 2011,

including the cases that Plaintiff filed contemporaneously with this case. Further, a

review of the PACER Case Locator reflects that Plaintiff filed at least one prisoner civil

rights case in the Northern District of Georgia prior to the instant case. Plaintiff failed to

disclose the existence of that case on the Complaint form.

Further, at least two of Plaintiff’s prior cases were dismissals that qualify as

“strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C § 1915(g). See Mobley v. Johnson, Case. No. 3:07-

cv-230, Doc. 11 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2007) (dismissing case for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Mobley v.

Bachelor, Case No. 1:94-cv-1083 Doc. 2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 1994) (dismissing case as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(d)). Plaintiff affirmatively denied the existence of

these two dismissals in completing the Complaint form, in addition to failing to disclose

that other cases were dismissed prior to service.

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

disclose and truthfully describe all 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 (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

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

but may be cited as persuasive authority.

Case No: 5:11-cv-172-RH-GRJ

Case 5:11-cv-00172-RH-GRJ Document 9 Filed 12/29/11 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

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;

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

Case No: 5:11-cv-172-RH-GRJ

Case 5:11-cv-00172-RH-GRJ Document 9 Filed 12/29/11 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

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, in view of the fact that Plaintiff is an experienced pro se litigator who

plainly understands the disclosure requirements of the Court’s Complaint form, it is

respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for abuse of the judicial

process.

IN CHAMBERS this 29 day of December 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: 5:11-cv-172-RH-GRJ

Case 5:11-cv-00172-RH-GRJ Document 9 Filed 12/29/11 Page 4 of 4