United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
DANNEL M. MITCHELL, #R07374, Plaintiff,
WARDEN DENNISON, T. PITTAYATHIKHAN, DR. DAVID, K. SMOOT, L. LECRANE, and WEXFORD HEALTH CARE, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN CHIEF JUDGE
matter is now before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff
Dannel Mitchell's Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. 15) filed
on June 15, 2017, Motion to Demonstrate Imminent Danger (Doc.
16) filed on June 15, 2017, and “Motion to Re-evaluate
Motions, TRO, Preliminary Injunction, etc.” (Doc. 17)
filed on June 19, 2017. The Court construes all three motions
collectively as a request for reconsideration of the
Court's decision to deny Plaintiff's request to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and
dismiss this case with prejudice as a sanction for
intentionally failing to disclose his litigation history in
his IFP application. (Docs. 6, 13-14). For the reasons set
forth herein, all three motions (Docs. 15-17) shall be
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against officials at Shawnee Correctional Center after
they allegedly failed to treat his severe lower back pain.
(Doc. 2). He transferred to Shawnee on March 24, 2017, and
filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO
Motion”) one month later on April 24, 2017. (Doc. 1).
In it, Plaintiff requested a full evaluation of his back
injury at a hospital and a long term course of pain
medication. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
explained that he did not file a Complaint because he had not
exhausted his administrative remedies. (Doc. 1, pp. 1, 4).
Plaintiff's TRO Motion was initially filed in another one
of his pending cases involving the same defendant. Plaintiff
advised the Court by letter dated May 8, 2017, that he
intended to file a separate case. Along with the letter, he
submitted a Complaint (Doc. 2) and a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”)
(Doc. 3). A new case was opened.
screening the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court first considered Plaintiff's request for IFP. (Doc.
6). In the IFP Motion, Plaintiff failed to disclose his
litigation history, including each of the
“strikes” he incurred before filing the instant
action. (Doc. 3). Instead, he indicated in his Complaint that
he had begun no other lawsuits in federal court relating to
his imprisonment. (Doc. 2, p. 3). A review of public records
revealed that Plaintiff was misleading the Court.
to commencing this action, he “struck out” by
filing three or more frivolous, malicious, or meritless
actions. See Mitchell v. Baldwin, No.
16-cv-00278-NJR (S.D. Ill.) (dismissed for failure to state a
claim on Aug. 9, 2016); Mitchell v. Dennison, No.
16-cv-01189-MJR (S.D. Ill.) (dismissed as frivolous on Jan.
12, 2017); Mitchell v. Gateway Foundation, No.
17-cv-02741 (N.D. Ill.) (dismissed for failure to state a
claim on April 27, 2017). See also Mitchell v.
Lupert, No. 16-cv-00486-SMY (S.D. Ill.) (dismissed on
June 14, 2016) (Doc. 8). The Court found that the omission of
his entire litigation history from his IFP Motion and
Complaint was both knowing and intentional. (Doc. 6).
failure to disclose his litigation history while seeking
leave to proceed IFP was grounds for immediate dismissal of
the case. (Doc. 6, p. 4) (citing Hoskins v. Dart,
633 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2011) (dismissal with prejudice
appropriate where Court-issued complaint form clearly warned
Plaintiff that failure to provide litigation history would
result in dismissal); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d
724, 725 (7th Cir. 2008) (termination of suit is an
appropriate sanction for struck-out prisoner who took
advantage of court's oversight and was granted leave to
proceed IFP); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59
(7th Cir. 1999) (litigant who sought and obtained leave to
proceed IFP without disclosing his three-strikes status
committed a fraud upon the court)). See also Postlewaite
v. Duncan, 668 F. App'x 162 (7th Cir. 2016)
(immediately terminating appeal filed by plaintiff who
falsely represented to district court and Court of Appeals
that he was eligible to proceed in forma pauperis);
Ramirez v. Barsanti, 654 F. App'x 822 (7th Cir.
2016) (same). Before deciding whether the dismissal would be
with or without prejudice, the Court offered Plaintiff an
opportunity to show cause why he should not be subject to
this sanction. (Doc. 6, p. 7). His response to the show cause
order was due on or before May 24, 2017. Id.
before this deadline expired, Plaintiff responded by filing a
letter with the Court. (Doc. 9). In it, he indicated that he
has been bedridden and in constant pain. (Doc. 9, pp. 1-4).
He complained that prison officials continue to ignore his
complaints. Id. However, he offered no reason for
omitting his entire litigation history from the Complaint and
IFP Motion. Id. After considering the response, the
Court concluded that Plaintiff's case should be dismissed
with prejudice. (Doc. 13). An Order Dismissing Case with
prejudice (Doc. 13) and Judgment (Doc. 14) were entered on
May 31, 2017.
Motion to Reopen (Doc. 15)
15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen Case. (Doc. 15).
There, Plaintiff explains that he was sent to the hospital on
May 23, 2017, where he was diagnosed and treated for
infections in his spinal cord and bones. (Doc. 15, p. 1). He
remained hospitalized for a week and did not receive his mail
until June 5, 2017. Id. For this reason, he was
“unable to respond.” Id. He went on to
explain that he did not disclose his strikes because he was
not aware how many strikes he had incurred or the case
numbers associated with them. (Doc. 15, pp. 1-2).
Motion to Demonstrate Imminent Danger (Doc. 16)
June 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Demonstrate
Imminent Danger, in which he describes excruciating pain
dating back to March 5, 2017. (Doc. 16). He was allegedly
given pain medication for five days while he was housed at
Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”).
(Doc. 16, p. 1). X-rays taken of his lower back during that