Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180309_0000797.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:56:06+00:00

Document:
ANTOINE G. CALDWELL; DR. COWEN; MS. GRANISON; and SAMANTHA MIRANDO, Defendants.
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Johnson State Prison in Wrightsville, 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 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 Fed.Appx. 818 (11th Cir. 2006). Indeed, the Magistrate Judge who screened Plaintiff's prior case filed in the Southern District explained in detail the importance of providing truthful information about prior filing history and recommended dismissal of the case “for Plaintiffs failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history as required.” CV 616-100, doc. no. 9, pp. 4-6 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2016), adopted by, doc. no. 11 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 17, 2016). As discussed above, Plaintiffs disclosures concerning his prior federal lawsuits was blatantly dishonest, and this case should be dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for the dishonesty.

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