Filed: Jun. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-15112 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 1, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 09-00072-CV-4-RS-WCS DARRYL MAURICE YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY FLORIDA FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, WALTER MCNEIL, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern D
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-15112 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 1, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 09-00072-CV-4-RS-WCS DARRYL MAURICE YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY FLORIDA FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, WALTER MCNEIL, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Di..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-15112 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 1, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 09-00072-CV-4-RS-WCS
DARRYL MAURICE YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY FLORIDA FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants,
WALTER MCNEIL,
Secretary Florida Department
of Corrections,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 1, 2010)
BeforeTJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district court, acting sua sponte, dismissed this civil rights case pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as a sanction for plaintiff Young’s abuse of
process.1 Young now appeals the dismissal. We affirm.
I
First, Young argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing
his third amended complaint as a sanction for failing fully to disclose his prior
lawsuits on the complaint form the court’s clerk provided him. He contends that it
was error for the court to grant his motion to proceed IFP then to dismiss his case
because the complaint was “inartfully pled.” He contends that he made a good
faith effort to disclose his prior lawsuits but that he was hindered because (1) he
could not afford to pay the copying and certification costs charged by the Florida
state courts and (2) he no longer had the documents necessary to answer fully
because of a Florida Department of Corrections rule prohibiting the possession of
“excess legal material.”
We review a district court’s decision to impose sanctions under its inherent
1
Plaintiff brought the suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2
power for an abuse of discretion. In re Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., 456 F.3d 1291,
1304 (11th Cir. 2006). Federal courts have the inherent power to impose sanctions
on parties, but the court must make a finding of bad faith on the part of the litigant
before imposing such sanctions.
Id. A party engages in bad faith by “delaying or
disrupting the litigation or hampering enforcement of a court order.”
Id. (quotation
and citation omitted).
We also review for abuse of discretion sanctions imposed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 612 (11th Cir. 1997). A
dismissal with prejudice under § 1915 is an “extreme sanction” to be exercised
only in appropriate cases. Camp v. Oliver,
798 F.2d 434, 438 (11th Cir. 1986).
However, “while dismissal of an action with prejudice is a sanction of last resort, it
is appropriate in cases involving bad faith.” Dawson v. Lennon,
797 F.2d 934, 935
(11th Cir. 1986).
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). However, a
defendant's pro se status in civil litigation generally will not excuse mistakes he
makes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States,
508 U.S. 106, 113,
113
S. Ct. 1980, 1984,
124 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1993) (stating that the Court had “never
3
suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so
as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel”).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sanctioned Young
for failing to disclose his prior cases. The hindrances he identified did not absolve
him of the requirement of disclosing, at a minimum, all of the information that was
known to him.
II
Second, Young argues that the district court abused its discretion by not
giving him an opportunity to amend or supplement his complaint to disclose his
other prior lawsuits. He asserts, based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, that
the district court should have specifically ordered him to cure the defect in his
complaint, and he concedes that if he did not cure “after being ordered then no
abuse of discretion would have occurred.”
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to amend a
complaint. Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 477 F.3d 1282,
1291 (11th Cir. 2007). Rule 15 allows a party to amend its pleadings “once as a
matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). However, the party must then obtain
either the adverse party’s written consent or the court’s leave in order to file further
amendments. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The court’s leave shall be freely given
4
“when justice so requires.” Id. Valid reasons for denying a motion to amend
include “bad faith . . . on the part of the movant, [and] repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.” Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178,
182,
83 S. Ct. 227, 230,
9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Young to
file a fourth amended complaint after he failed to provide full disclosure in any of
his prior complaints. The district court was not obliged to expend more of its
resources in curing the very same type of defect that it had pointed out before,
especially given that it had provided him with a suitable warning concerning the
consequences of his failure to cure that defect.
III
Finally, Young argues that the district court denied him procedural due
process by imposing dismissal as a sanction without providing him with notice and
an opportunity to be heard.
Courts must afford a sanctioned party due process, both in determining the
bad faith required to invoke the court's inherent power to impose sanctions and in
assessing fees. In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
Due process in this context requires only that the sanctionee have fair notice of the
possible imposition of sanctions and an opportunity to respond orally or in writing.
5
Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1559-60 (11th Cir. 1987) (en banc).
The district court did not deny Young procedural due process because it had
warned him on several occasions that failure to follow the court’s orders could
result in dismissal, he had the opportunity to respond to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation by filing objections, and he has not pointed to anything
in the record showing that he was treated unfairly in any way.
AFFIRMED.
6
