Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180131_0000414.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:56:10+00:00

Document:
SCOTT WILKES, Warden, Augusta Medical Prison; DR. ALSTON, Medical Director; and DR. DITSLEAR, DDS, Augusta Medical Prison, Defendants.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Central State Prison in Macon, Georgia, brings a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events alleged to have occurred at Augusta State Medical Prison in Grovetown, Georgia. Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Plaintiff's complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App'x 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006). After a review of Plaintiff's complaint and prior history of case filings, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this action be DISMISSED without prejudice as a sanction for abuse of the judicial process by providing dishonest information about his prior filing history.
“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 to 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 723-28.
To that end, the “Questionnaire for Prisoners Proceeding Pro Se Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” for the Middle District of Georgia requires that prisoner plaintiffs disclose: (1) whether they ever submitted a lawsuit for filing dealing with the same facts involved in the present lawsuit or otherwise related to their imprisonment, (2) whether, while incarcerated or detained, they ever submitted a lawsuit for filing dealing with facts other than those involved in the present lawsuit, and (3) whether any such suit filed in federal court was dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim.
Here, Plaintiff indicated he had not previously filed any lawsuit in federal court. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 2-3.) However, the Court is aware of at least three other § 1983 cases Plaintiff previously filed in federal court. See Andrew v. Georgia Dep't of Corr., et al., CV 514-311 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2014); Andrew v. Bryson, et al., CV 515-307 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 10, 2015); Andrew v. Georgia Dep't of Corr., et al., CV 517-216 (M.D. Ga. June 8, 2017). Thus, Plaintiff provided false information about his prior filing history in his complaint.
Rivera, 144 F.3d at 731 (citations omitted); see also Young v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Corr., 380 F. App'x 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal under inherent power of federal courts based on a plaintiff's failure to disclose prior cases on the court's complaint form).
The practice of dismissing a case as a sanction for providing false information about prior filing history is also well established in the Southern District of Georgia. See, e.g., Brown v. Wright, CV 111-044 (S.D. Ga. June 17, 2011); Hood v. Tompkins, CV 605-094 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2005), aff'd, 197 F. App'x 818 (11th Cir. 2006). Because Plaintiff provided blatantly dishonest answers in his complaint, this case should be DISMISSED.

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