Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180306_0000784.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:52:22+00:00

Document:
SCOTT WILKES; RUTHIE SHELTON; MARY ALSTAN; AYAZ CHAUDHARY; P.A. CAIN; STAN SHEPARD; KIMBERLY FOUNTAIN; TIMOTHY WARD; and GREGORY DOZIER, Defendants.
BRIAN K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Augusta State Medical Prison (“ASMP”) in Grovetown, Georgia, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because he is proceeding IFP, Plaintiff's pleadings must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 Fed.Appx. 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court affords a liberal construction to a pro se litigant's pleadings, holding them to a more lenient standard than those drafted by an attorney, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), but the Court may dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). After a review of Plaintiff's complaint and prior history of case filings, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this action be DISMISSED without prejudice, the motion for an “Examination by An Outside Physician” be DENIED, (doc. no. 13), and the motions for a preliminary injunction and for entry of default, (doc. nos. 14, 16), be DENIED AS MOOT.
“This provision of the PLRA, commonly known as the three strikes provision, requires frequent filer prisoners to prepay the entire filing fee before federal courts may consider their lawsuits and appeals.” Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 723 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). The Eleventh Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of § 1915(g) because it does not violate an inmate's right to access the courts, the doctrine of separation of powers, an inmate's right to due process of law, or an inmate's right to equal protection. Id. at 721-27.
Here, under penalty of perjury, Plaintiff identified one prior case he filed dealing with the same facts in this action. (Id. at 1 (disclosing Reid v. Crickmar, No. 1:17-cv-0190 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 16, 2017).) Plaintiff also disclosed four other cases he identified as “dismissed without prejudice.” The first three are: (1) Reid v. Wilkes, No. 1:17-cv-032 (S.D. Ga. July 10, 2017) (dismissed for failing to disclose prior lawsuits); (2) Reid v. Crickmar, No. 1:17-cv-0619 (N.D.Ga. May 9, 2017 (dismissed for improper venue); and, (3) Reid v. Crickmar, No. 1:17-cv-0230 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 1, 2017) (dismissed for improper venue). Plaintiff also listed a fourth case out of the Northern District of Georgia, but the Court has been unable to verify a case name or disposition for a case filed by Plaintiff with the case number 1:17-cv-220. Notably, however, the Court is aware of one other federal case Plaintiff did not disclose: Reid v. Crickmar, No. 4:17-cv-119 (N.D.Ga. July 11, 2017) (dismissed for failing to disclose prior lawsuits). Similar to the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff raised allegations in the undisclosed lawsuit related to his medical treatment for Hepatitis B.
(affirming dismissal of complaint where prisoner plaintiff failed to accurately disclose previous litigation); Redmon v. Lake Cty. Sheriff's Office, 414 Fed.Appx. 221, 223, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal, after directing service of process, of amended complaint raising claims that included denial of proper medical care and cruel and unusual punishment for placement in a “restraint chair” and thirty-seven days of solitary confinement upon discovering prisoner plaintiff failed to disclose one prior federal lawsuit); Young v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Corr., 380 Fed.Appx. 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal of third amended complaint based on a plaintiff's failure to disclose prior cases on the court's complaint form); Alexander v. Salvador, No. 5:12cv15, 2012 WL 1538368 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2012) (dismissing case alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs where plaintiff failed to disclose new case commenced in interim between filing original complaint and second amended complaint), adopted by, Alexander v. Salvador, No. 5:12cv15, 2012 WL 1538336 (N.D. Fla. May 2, 2012).

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.