Lagrandeur v. Brown

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedDecember 16, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00684
StatusUnknown

This text of Lagrandeur v. Brown (Lagrandeur v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lagrandeur v. Brown, (M.D. Fla. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

JEFFREY LAGRANDEUR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-684-SPC-NPM

BROWN, VALESQUEZ, LANZETTA, MS. PAT, MATHEWSON, HERCHY and MS. THOMPSON,

Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER Jeffrey Lagrandeur is a Florida state prisoner, and he sues seven state officials. Before ruling on Lagrandeur’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Magistrate Judge Nicholas Mizell learned Lagrandeur misrepresented his litigation history by omitting eight lawsuits from the relevant section of his Complaint. Judge Mizell ordered Lagrandeur to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for abuse of the judicial process. Lagrandeur did not respond. Based on the facts set out in Judge Mizell’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 8) and Lagrandeur’s failure to respond to that order, the Court finds Lagrandeur abused the judicial process by misrepresenting his litigation history and thereby avoiding potential dismissal under the three-strikes rule set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Allen v. Clark, 266 F. App’x 815, 817 (11th Cir 2008) (dismissals for failure to prosecute and abuse of the judicial process are considered strikes). The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly found dismissal appropriate when a prisoner misrepresents his litigation history. See Redmon

v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 414 F. App’x 221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (prisoner's failure to disclose a prior lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial process); Shelton

v. Rohrs, 406 F. App’x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); and Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (same). The Court will thus dismiss this action without prejudice. Lagrandeur may file a new action, but he must either

pay the filing fee or establish an exception to the three-strike rule. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment of dismissal without prejudice, and close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 16, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Paul M. Hood v. Warden Billy Tompkins
197 F. App'x 818 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)
Clarence Allen v. Howard Clark
266 F. App'x 815 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
Matthew Tazio Redmon v. Lake County Sheriff's Office
414 F. App'x 221 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)
Shelton v. Rohrs
406 F. App'x 340 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lagrandeur v. Brown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lagrandeur-v-brown-flmd-2024.