Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RONNIE WAYNE DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-222-MP-GRJ

EDWIN G. BUSS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

of Corrections (“FDOC”), initiated this case by filing a pro se civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 and a Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis on November

12, 2010. (Docs. 1 & 2.) The Court entered an order on November 17, 2010 granting

Plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis and giving Plaintiff the opportunity to

amend his Complaint. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December

7, 2010 (Doc. 7), a Second Amended Complaint on March 3, 2011 (Doc. 11) and a

Third Amended Complaint on March 4, 2011. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

On May 16, 2011, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case

should not be dismissed for abuse of the judicial process. Doc. 13. As set forth in detail

in that Order, the Court determined that Plaintiff failed to truthfully disclose his prior case

filing history in the Third Amended Complaint, which he executed under penalty of

perjury. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to disclose Daniels v. Sapp, Case No. 3:97-cv-91-

JMH (E.D. Ky. July 13, 1998), a case in which Plaintiff claimed that the Commissioner of

Case 1:10-cv-00222-MP-GRJ Document 17 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

the Kentucky Department of Corrections violated his constitutional rights by refusing to

provide him with Kentucky legal materials and refusing him access to persons trained in

Kentucky law. Final summary judgment was entered against Plaintiff and in favor of 

the defendant Commissioner. Plaintiff also failed to list another case that he filed in the

Eastern District of Kentucky that was dismissed sua sponte prior to service. See

Daniels v. Sapp, Case No. 3:99-cv-83-JMH (E.D. Ky. Nov. 17, 1999). 

Plaintiff’s response to the show cause order asserts that his lack of candor

should be excused because his legal papers were destroyed in a shakedown at

Calhoun C.I. in 2000, he has filed suit in state courts in which his prior filing history was

not a factor, and the omitted cases “faded from Plaintiff’s memory.” Plaintiff states that

he has filed other federal cases in which he did not disclose the omitted cases, with no

adverse consequences. 

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

this case. Plaintiff did not represent that he was unable to fully respond to the

questions on the complaint form concerning prior cases. He untruthfully represented

that there were no additional prior cases. The docket from Plaintiff’s undisclosed 1999

case reflects that Plaintiff was assessed the civil filing fee prior to dismissal, and that

following the dismissal he unsuccessfully moved to withdraw the case. In the Court’s

view, it is unlikely that an indigent prisoner who has been assessed a filing fee in a

federal case would fail to recollect that the case had been filed. In the same vein,

Plaintiff was assessed the filing fee in his 1997 case, and the case was litigated through

summary judgment, which Plaintiff opposed. It strains credulity to suggest that the

existence of this case completely escaped Plaintiff’s memory. 

Case No: 1:10-cv-222-MP-GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00222-MP-GRJ Document 17 Filed 09/30/11 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

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

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, at *4 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011).1 In Redmon, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the

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

1

 Pursuant to 11th Cir. Rule 36-2, unpublished opinions are not binding precedent but may be cited

as persuasive authority.

Case No: 1:10-cv-222-MP-GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00222-MP-GRJ Document 17 Filed 09/30/11 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

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-cv-151, 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.”). In this

instance, Plaintiff completely failed to disclose two cases in Sections IV C and IV D on

the Court’s Complaint form that clearly should have been disclosed. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. This cause should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for abuse of the

judicial process.

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

1915(g). 

IN CHAMBERS this 30th day of September 2011. 

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

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: 1:10-cv-222-MP-GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00222-MP-GRJ Document 17 Filed 09/30/11 Page 4 of 4