Joseph L. Strickland v. USA

Case: 17-13190 Date Filed: 09/28/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13190
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cv-00146-LC-EMT
JOSEPH L. STRICKLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
R. RIVERA,
Dr.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(September 28, 2018)
Case: 17-13190 Date Filed: 09/28/2018 Page: 2 of 5
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph L. Strickland, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of
his action against the United States and Dr. R. Rivera, seeking relief under the
Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) 1 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics.2 The District Court denied Strickland’s motion to
amend his complaint, after Strickland had already amended his complaint once. It
then dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Strickland misrepresented
the number of cases he had previously filed in district court. Strickland argues on
appeal that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to amend.
He also argues that the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing his
complaint because, even though the District Court’s order stated the dismissal was
without prejudice, the dismissal of his FTCA claim was in effect with prejudice
since the statute of limitations had run for that claim. We affirm the District
Court’s decision on both matters.
I.
We review the denial of a motion to amend a complaint for abuse of
discretion. Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff
1
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).
2
403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971).
2
Case: 17-13190 Date Filed: 09/28/2018 Page: 3 of 5
may amend his complaint once at any time before the defendants file a responsive
pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1); see Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024, 1032
(11th Cir. 1993). After the first amendment, however, the district court should
only grant leave to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Strickland did not file his initial complaint on the court-approved form, as
required under the Local Rule 5.7(A) for the Northern District of Florida. The
District Court therefore provided Strickland an opportunity to amend his
complaint. He did so. Later on, Strickland moved to “Add Names to [the]
Complaint,” seeking to name additional prison officials as defendants. The District
Court summarily denied this motion. It did not abuse its discretion in doing so
because Strickland had an opportunity to amend his complaint and he made no
argument as to why the interests of justice warranted a second amendment.
II.
A district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action if it is “frivolous or
malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We review a district court’s dismissal
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of discretion. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157,
1160 (11th Cir. 2003). A district court has “the inherent ability to dismiss a claim
in light of its authority to enforce its orders and provide for the efficient disposition
of litigation.” Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006). But the
dismissal of a case with prejudice is a sanction of last resort, applicable only in
3
Case: 17-13190 Date Filed: 09/28/2018 Page: 4 of 5
extreme circumstances. Id. Therefore, a district court may dismiss an action with
prejudice only upon a clear record of willful misconduct and an implicit or explicit
finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns,
178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999).
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Strickland’s
complaint—even though the dismissal of his FTCA claim was in effect with
prejudice—because the action was malicious. The complaint form instructed
Strickland that his case would be dismissed if he failed to list any previously filed
cases. See Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that it is an
abuse of process to fail to disclose previous litigation when proceeding in forma
pauperis), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S. Ct.
910 (2007). It also instructed him to inform the District Court if he was unsure of
the cases he had filed previously. Strickland nonetheless failed to disclose eight
habeas petitions he filed in district court. 3 The record thus shows clear and willful
misconduct.
A sanction less than dismissal would signal that a failure to disclose filings
is an infraction without consequence. It would invite other prisoners to omit their
litigation history, thus draining the judicial system’s time and resources. The
District Court implicitly found as much, and therefore it did not abuse its discretion
3
The District Court also identified previous litigation in which Strickland made repetitive
and successive filings or voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit after service.
4
Case: 17-13190 Date Filed: 09/28/2018 Page: 5 of 5
by dismissing Strickland’s FTCA claim with prejudice. Strickland remains free to
refile his Bivens claim in this case, so long as he does so within the applicable
statute of limitations. See Kelly v. Serna, 87 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1996)
(stating that Bivens claims have a four-year statute of limitations).
AFFIRMED.
5