Opinion ID: 3061306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of Amended Complaint

Text: On appeal, Plaintiff raises a number of arguments. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint based on Plaintiff’s misrepresentation of his litigation history, we affirm on that ground and need not reach Plaintiff’s additional arguments. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 3 Plaintiff did not seek an injunction in his Amended Complaint, although he had requested one in his original complaint. 9 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for abuse of judicial process.4 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 (1993). After review of the record and consideration of Plaintiff’s brief, we find no abuse of discretion. Plaintiff failed to disclose the lawsuit he filed in Colorado district court, in which he brought claims relating to the conditions of his imprisonment in a Colorado jail and which he filed prior to the Amended Complaint. The district court afforded him the opportunity to show cause why his Amended Complaint should not be dismissed on the basis of his failure to disclose the Colorado lawsuit, which he did by explaining that he did not understand the 4 We review the district court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for abuse of discretion. Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 612 (11th Cir. 1997). We also are mindful that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 10 complaint form. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Plaintiff’s explanation for his failure to disclose the Colorado lawsuit–that he misunderstood the form–did not excuse the misrepresentation and that dismissal without prejudice was a proper sanction. The complaint form clearly asked Plaintiff to disclose previously filed lawsuits he had filed not only with similar facts to the instant case, but also lawsuits otherwise relating to his imprisonment or conditions of his imprisonment. The district court was entitled to conclude that Plaintiff had abused the judicial process when he failed to do so.