United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 2, 2018, the Court gave Plaintiff 14 days to explain
why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for the
intentional failure to disclose income in his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). See March 2, 2018
Order. Plaintiff was also directed to indicate whether or not
he had received a recent settlement payment.
Court noted when Plaintiff filed his complaint and IFP motion
on November 3, 2017, he submitted copies of trust fund
ledgers from the three months of May through July of 2017,
not the six month period required. . Therefore, Plaintiff
failed to disclose $758 in income and the “bulk of that
income was received two months before Plaintiff filed his
lawsuit. March 2, 2018 Order, p. 2. In addition, the IFP form
Plaintiff submitted “directed him to report any income
within the past 12 months from a variety of potential sources
including ‘gifts39; or ‘any other
sources.39;” (IFP Mot., , p. 1). In each instance,
Plaintiff circled boxes indicating he had received no income
whatsoever. (IFP Mot., , p. 1).” March 2, 2018
Order, p. 2.
has now filed his response claiming the failure to provide
this information was in inadvertent mistake. Plaintiff says
he filed out his complaint form between May and July of 2017.
However, Plaintiff says “some county jail problem and
prison problems” took his focus away from mailing the
complaint. (Plain. Resp., p. 1). Therefore, Plaintiff says he
did not notice when he submitted the document in November of
2017 that the Trust Fund Ledgers were not updated.
also says he has an unspecified mental illness of “slow
learning and shortage of memory.” (Comp., p. 1).
Plaintiff finally says the settlement mentioned by the Court
was not complete when he filed his complaint in this
case. In addition, the settlement received has
already been taken to pay other court filing
fees. Plaintiff says he will pay his current
fees with his next settlement.
Plaintiff argues his case should not be dismissed because the
failure to provide accurate financial information was simply
an error due to the fact that he is not an attorney.
complaint and IFP form are dated July 12, 2017. [1, 3]. It
also appears Plaintiff requested his Trust Fund Ledgers in
July of 2017. . Nonetheless, despite the fact that
Plaintiff was warned his case could be dismissed, Plaintiff
has failed to explain why he held on to these documents for
nearly four months before filing them beyond Plaintiff39;s
vague reference to “problems” during this time
frame. (Plain. Resp., p. 1). Furthermore, if Plaintiff39;s
original intention was to file the documents four months
earlier, he did not. Plaintiff clearly knew he did not submit
his complaint and IFP form until November of 2017.
is also well aware that an Illinois statute requires any
prisoner seeking to proceed IFP to provide an affidavit
“that includes a statement of all assets such prisoners
possesses…” 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1). In
addition to the affidavit, a prisoner “shall
submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement
…for the prisoner for the 6-month period
immediately proceeding the filing of the
complaint...” 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(2)(emphasis added). Plaintiff has proceeded IFP
on seven previous occasions and the specific IFP form
Plaintiff filled out and signed in this case admonished
Plaintiff in writing that “the law requires information
as to such accounts concerning a full six months before
you filed your lawsuit…” (IFP Mot., p. 3).
addition, while Plaintiff claims he originally intended to
file his lawsuit in July of 2017, he only submitted Trust
Fund Ledgers for approximately two months, not the six months
required. . More important, Plaintiff still failed to
disclose $127.76 in gifts or wages he received during this
time period and instead Plaintiff claimed he had received no
income of any kind in his IFP application. [3, 4].
Plaintiff has not indicated any specific mental illness which
prevents him from properly litigating his claims. As
previously noted, Plaintiff has a significant amount of
experience filing and litigating similar lawsuits. See
August v. Clague, Case No. 16-4079 (settled/pro se);
Augusta v. Winbigler, Case No. 16-4115 (pending/pro
se); Augusta v. Knox County Sheriff, Case No.
16-4032 (pending/pro se); Augusta v. People of the State
of Illinois, Case No. 17-4035 (dismissed/pro se); and
Augusta v. IDOC, Case No. 16-4190
(pending/pro se) in the Central District of Illinois; and
Augusta v. Unknown Party, Case No. 17-798
(pending/pro se) and August v. Vandalia Correctional
Center, Case No. 17-919 (pending/pro se) in the Southern
District of Illinois.
Court notes if Plaintiff had disclosed the $738 in income he
received in the months before he filed his lawsuit, it is
still possible the Court still would have granted
Plaintiff39;s IFP motion, but “[a]n applicant has to
tell the truth, then argue to the judge why seemingly adverse
facts….. are not dispositive. A litigant can39;t
say, ‘I know how the judge should rule, so
I39;m entitled to conceal material information from
him.39;” Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d
441, 443 (7th Cir. 2016).
Seventh Circuit has “held that a dismissal with
prejudice is an appropriate sanction for lying to the court
in order to receive a benefit from it, because no one needs
to be warned not to lie to the judiciary.” Ayoubi
v. Dart, 640 Fed.Appx. 524, 528-29 (7thCir.
2016); Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 31 F.3d 441');">831 F.3d 441, 442
(decision to dismiss prisoner39;s lawsuit with prejudice
for failure to disclose outside funds “was
proper.”); David v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 669
Fed.Appx. 793, 795 (7th Cir.
2016)(“dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate
sanction whenever a plaintiff deceives the district court in
an application for pauper status); Thomas v. Gen. Motors
Acceptance Corp., 3d 305');">288 F.3d 305, 308 (7th Cir.2002)
(upholding dismissal with prejudice as sanction for litigant
who lied about income on IFP application). Therefore, the
Court will dismiss Plaintiff39;s complaint.
Plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice for
intentionally failing to disclose income in his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis ...