Jordan v. Rogers State Prison, 6:16-cv-00157

Plaintiff Craig A. Jordan, a prisoner at Rogers State Prison, filed a § 1983 complaint alleging multiple unrelated constitutional deprivations (limited law library access, lack of indigent materials and legal forms, no notary or re-entry counseling, scabies infection, placement in disciplinary segregation).
Alleged violations occurred between September 13 and November 7, 2016; complaint was executed November 9, 2016.
Jordan sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
On the § 1983 complaint form Jordan failed to indicate he had filed prior federal litigation and struck through follow-up questions, implying he had not filed previously.
Court records showed Jordan had filed a different federal suit (Jordan v. Paulding Cty. Jail) before executing this complaint, so the court found a misrepresentation of litigation history.
Magistrate Judge recommended denial of IFP, dismissal without prejudice for abuse of the judicial process based on the misrepresentation, and denial of IFP on appeal as the appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint should proceed IFP despite plaintiff’s failure to disclose prior federal suit	Jordan alleged constitutional deprivations and sought IFP to pursue them	Court argued Jordan misrepresented prior filings on the § 1983 form, warranting sanction	Court denied IFP and recommended dismissal for abuse of judicial process
Whether nondisclosure of prior lawsuits justifies dismissal under § 1915	Jordan did not disclose prior filing (implied denial) and offered no persuasive excuse	Court relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent treating nondisclosure as bad-faith litigiousness	Court held nondisclosure warranted dismissal (sanction)
Whether complaint fails § 1915(e)(2)(B) screening (frivolous or fails to state claim)	Jordan alleged multiple constitutional complaints in form complaint	Court applied screening standards and considered abuse of process and lack of candor as dispositive	Court concluded dismissal appropriate under § 1915(e)(2)(B) due to abuse of process
Whether leave to appeal IFP should be allowed	Jordan could appeal dismissal	Court assessed whether any appeal would be taken in good faith	Court certified appeal would not be in good faith and denied IFP on appeal

Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir.) (IFP action is frivolous if without arguable merit in law or fact)
Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir.) (district courts may dismiss claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless under § 1915)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard for pleadings lacking factual basis)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (pro se status does not excuse procedural mistakes)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good-faith standard for IFP appeals)
Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610 (11th Cir.) (bad-faith litigiousness can warrant dismissal)