Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RAY CHRIS MOBLEY,

 Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:11cv179/RS/CJK

MARK SOWELL, et al., 

 Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). Upon review of the complaint, the Court concludes that

this case should be dismissed as maliciousfor plaintiff’s abuse ofthe judicial process.

Plaintiff was confined at a jail located in Eatonton, Georgia, when he filed the

instant complaint. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff is suing Mark Sowell and Greg Peel, law

enforcement officers with the Bay County Sheriffs Office. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff

claims that Peel had Sowell, “illegally, and in violation of State Protocol Procedure

transport me alone and in the middle of the night, and to assault me then file a false

code red report to [Corrections Corporation of America] in another attempt to coerce

or force me to pleading guilty to Capt. Peel’s false charge . . . .” (Doc. 1, p. 10). As

a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiffseeks “general damages and punitive
Page 2 of 7

damages for excessive force, filing false info, physical & mental cruelty, fright,

anxiety, emotional distress through ‘Intentional Infliction’ ect.” [sic] (Doc. 1, p. 10). 

DISCUSSION

Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to

dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the action is “(i) frivolous or

malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff dated his complaint May 14, 2011, the date reflected at the 

bottom of his complaint. (Doc. 1, p. 10). The complaint itself was filed in this Court

on June 6, 2011. On page three of the civil rights complaint form, Section IV(B)

Previous Lawsuits, is the following question: “Have you initiated other actions in

federal court dealing with the same or similar facts/issues involved in this action?” 

(Doc. 1, p. 3). Where there are parenthetical areas to mark either a “Yes” or “No”

answer to Question (B), plaintiff marked “Yes.” (Doc. 1, p. 4). The complaint form

then directs the prisoner to describe each action, attaching additional pages if

necessary. Plaintiff disclosed one case: Mobley v. McKeithen, et al., Case Number:

5:07cv118/RS/CJK, a civil rights case plaintiff filed in this Court on May 30, 2007.

On page four of the civil rights complaint form, Section IV(C), Previous

Lawsuits, is the following question: “Have you initiated other actions (besides those

listed above in Questions(A) and (B)) in either state or federal court that relate to the

1

fact or manner of your incarceration (including habeas corpus petitions) or the

conditions of your confinement (including civil rights complaints about any aspect

 Questions (A) asked plaintiff whether he had initiated other actions in state court dealing 1

with the same or similar facts/issues involved in the present action. Plaintiff answered “Yes” to

Question (A) and disclosed one case. (Doc. 1, p. 3).

Case No: 511cv179/RS/CJK
Page 3 of 7

of prison life, whether it be general circumstances or a particular episode, and

whether it involved excessive force or some other wrong)?” (Doc. 1, p. 4). Where

there are parenthetical areas to mark either a “Yes” or “No” answer to Question (C),

plaintiff marked “Yes.” (Doc. 1, p. 4). The complaint form then directs the prisoner

to describe each action, attaching additional pages if necessary. Plaintiff disclosed

two state court cases and eight federal cases. The federal cases plaintiff disclosed

were: Mobley v. CCA Corrections Corporation of America, et al., Case Number

5:09cv342/MCR/EMT, a civil rights case plaintiff initiated in this Court on October

13, 2009; Mobley v. McKeithen, et al., Case Number 5:09cv332/RS/MD, a civil rights

case plaintiff initiated in this Court on October 2, 2009; Mobley v. Walton County

Sheriff’s Office, et al., Case Number 3:11cv147/MCR/EMT, a civil rights case

plaintiff initiated in this court on March 28, 2011; Mobley v. Walton County Doc, et

al., Case Number 3:11cv148/RV/EMT, a civil rights case plaintiff filed in this court

on March 28, 2011; Mobley v. Walton County Doc et al., Case Number

3:11cv179/LC/EMT, a civil rights case plaintiff filed in this court on April 13, 2011; 

Mobley v. Sheriff Ralph Johnson, et al., Case Number 3:07cv230/MCR/EMT, a civil

rights case plaintiff filed in this court on May 30, 2007; Mobley v. Walton County

Department of Corrections, et al., Case Number 3:07cv235/MCR/MD, a civil rights

case plaintiff filed in this Court on June 1, 2007; and Mobley v. Walton County

Sheriff’s Office, et al., Case Number 3:11cv231/WS/EMT, a civil rights case filed in

this Court on May 11, 2011. Plaintiff disclosed no other cases. 

At the end of the civil rights complaint form, plaintiffsigned his name after the

following statement: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements

Case No: 511cv179/RS/CJK
Page 4 of 7

of fact, including all continuation pages, are true and correct.” (Doc. 1, p. 10). Thus,

plaintiff has in effectstated that he initiated no other lawsuits in federal court relating

to the conditions of his confinement.

As a matter of course, thisCourt attempts to make an independent investigation

into whether or not litigants truthfully complete the civil rights complaint forms,

especially when a lack of candor in informing the Court of prior lawsuits may affect

the court’s jurisdiction. Further, in the light of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) , the Court must

2

necessarily investigate the prior filings of a prisoner to enforce the so-called “three

strikes” provision. The time spent verifying the cases a plaintiff has filed but failed

to identify, as well as the reasons for their dismissal can be considerable. As the

Eleventh Circuit explained: “[T]he task of counting strikes involves more than

sophomoric arithmetic. Courts must search records of the prisoner’s prior federal

cases to determine whether judicial officers ‘on 3 or more prior occasions’ entered

orders of dismissals and, if so, whether the reason for the dismissals were

frivolousness, maliciousness or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.” Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 726 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g)), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). 

The Clerk has advised and the Court may take judicial notice, that at the time

plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on June 6, 2011, plaintiff had initiated at least six other

civil rights actions in this Court that he failed to disclose. On February 16, 2010

Section 1915(g) provides that “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 2

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States

that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted,” the prisoner may not bring an action in forma pauperis unless he is “under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case No: 511cv179/RS/CJK
Page 5 of 7

(filing date), plaintiff initiated Mobley v. CCA Corrections Corporation of America,

et al., Case Number 5:10cv34/RS/EMT. There, plaintiff complained of being falsely

charged and imprisoned, physically assaulted, malicious prosecution with no

investigation, and corrupt law enforcement officials. On May 11, 2011, plaintiff

initiated Mobley v. State of Florida, Case Number 3:11cv229/LC/EMT. There,

plaintiff complained of malicious prosecution, false charges being filed against

plaintiff, and incarceration of an innocent individual. On May 11, 2011, plaintiff

filed Mobley v. Sheppard, Case Number 3:11cv230/LC/CJK. There, plaintiff alleged

negligent medical care and failure to give adequate medicalsupervision. On May 11,

2011, plaintiff initiated Mobley v. Dr., Case Number 3:11cv232/RV/CJK. In that

case, plaintiff alleged instances of medical negligence and intentional infliction of

emotional distress on behalf of medical staff. On May 11, 2011, plaintiff filed

Mobley v. Santa Rosa County Jail Medical Dept, et al., Case Number

3:11cv233/MCR/EMT. In that case, plaintiff alleged excessive medical procedures,

intentional infliction of emotional distress, anxiety, shock, fright, sleeplessness, and

nightmares, all of which resulted from the medical care he received while in jail. On

May 11, 2011, plaintiff filed Mobley v. Corrections Corporation of America, et al.,

Case Number 5:11cv142/RS/GRJ. There, plaintiff alleged various instances of law

enforcement misconduct and unlawful incarceration fromfalse charges. Plaintiff did

not disclose any of these cases in the instant complaint. The foregoing cases may be

Case No: 511cv179/RS/CJK
Page 6 of 7

positively identified as having been filed by plaintiff because it bears his Florida

Department of Corrections inmate number, DC#22886 . 

3

The Court has the authority to control and manage matterssuch asthis pending

before it, and plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from conforming to

acceptable standards in approaching the Court. 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. Here, plaintiff falsely responded to a question on the complaint form, as

detailed above. Plaintiff knew from reading the complaint form that disclosure of all

prior actions was required. The complaint form expressly warns prisoners:

“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.” (Doc. 1,

p. 3). If plaintiff suffered no penalty for his untruthful response, there would be little

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

Therefore, this Court should not allow plaintiff’s false response to go unpunished. 

The undersigned recommendsthat an appropriate sanction for plaintiff’s abuse of the

judicial process in not providing the Court with true factual statements or responses

is to dismiss this case without prejudice.

One case, Mobley v. CCA Corrections Corporation of America, et al., Case Number 3

5:10cv34/RS/EMT, does not have plaintiff’s inmate number listed, but does feature a plaintiff with

the very same name and located at the exact address as the instant plaintiff.

Case No: 511cv179/RS/CJK
Page 7 of 7

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as malicious under

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial process.

2. That the Clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida this 8th day of January, 2013.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATEJUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object

may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636;

United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No: 511cv179/RS/CJK