Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180724_0001569.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:23:16+00:00

Document:
J. MUNNEKE, L. OWINGS, RANDALL PASS Defendants.
However, failure to accurately disclose one's litigation history is also grounds for dismissal, and because it is apparent here that Plaintiff has attempted to mislead the Court with regards to his litigation history, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice as a sanction.
Rather than using the Court's pre-printed form, Plaintiff prepared his own Complaint. However, his preparation closely tracks the pre-printed form. Specifically, Plaintiff addresses the question of previous lawsuits. His statement in its entirety is that “Oden has no other law suits in state or federal court relating to the Defendant 1, 2, 3 listed herein.” (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Yet despite the intimation of that statement, Plaintiff is quite the prolific filer. A review of the PACER system shows that Plaintiff has filed at least 13 other federal actions: Oden v. Wilson, 18-cv-183-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. 2018); Oden v. Mcormick, 18-cv-154-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. 2018); Oden v. Wilson, 17-cv-0489-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. 2017); Oden v. True, 18-cv-600-MJR (S.D. Ill. 2018); Oden v. Wilson, 18-6698 (4th Cir. 2018); Oden v. United States, 16-cv-047-JPB-JES (N.D. W.Va 2016); Oden v. State of North Carolina, 16-cv-193-JAG-RCY (E. D. Va. 2016); Oden v. Wilson, 16-cv-110 (E.D. Va. 2016); Oden v. Wilson, 17-cv-286-RCY (E.D. Va. 2017); Oden v. Wilson, 16-cv-307-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. 2016); Oden v. Wilson, 15-cv-196-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. 2015); In Re Christopher Oden, 15-2308 (4th Cir. 2015); and Oden v. Wilson, 16-7680 (4th Cir. 2016).
District courts may dismiss litigation without further warning or opportunity to cure in the event that a litigant makes material and intentional omissions in filing his complaint. Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543-44 (7th Cir. 2011). A pro-se prisoner's litigation history is material because that that information enables a court to manage its docket and adhere to the 3-strikes requirement of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Id. at 544.
Plaintiff has attempted to comply with the disclosure requirement by specifically stating that he has not filed another lawsuit against the specific defendants named in this suit. But that is not the requirement; the Court's form asks about “any other lawsuits in state or federal court relating to your imprisonment.” While Plaintiff's interpretation may address the concern about duplicative litigation, it does nothing to assist the Court in assessing the application of the three-strikes requirement.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.