United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
Keith R. Irving, #N98579, Plaintiff,
DANIEL SULLIVAN, ANGELA WINSOR, MORGENTHALER, HUMMERHOUSE, and RAMSEY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. REINHARD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
[1" name="FN1" id="FN1">1]
Keith Irving, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), currently incarcerated at
Big Muddy River Correctional Center (“Big
Muddy”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that several prison
officials on multiple occasions have failed to provide him
ice three times a day pursuant to a medical permit.
screening the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the
court must address plaintiff's failure to disclose his
litigation history. When preparing his complaint, plaintiff
used this court's standard civil rights complaint form
for state prisoners, which requires plaintiffs to disclose
all other lawsuits they have filed in state or federal court
while in prison or jail. (, p. 3). The form also states
that “FAILURE TO FULLY DISCLOSE YOUR LITIGATION
HISTORY, INCLUDING ‘STRIKES,' MAY RESULT IN
SANCTIONS THAT INCLUDE DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION.”
Id. On the form, plaintiff indicated that he had
previously filed other lawsuits while incarcerated. He did
not, however, list such lawsuits because he claims that ten
years has passed and he is unable to remember complete and
accurate information regarding the cases. Plaintiff also
instructed the Clerk of Court to do a computer search of his
case history. Id.
complaint form clearly warns that a plaintiff who fails to
comply with the directive to list all his prior lawsuits may
have his case dismissed by the court. (, p. 3). Further,
the court relies on a party's litigation history listed
in his or her complaint to adhere to the three-strike
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and thus there is a
need for reliable information about prior litigation. As a
result, where a party fails to provide accurate litigation
history, the court may appropriately dismiss the action for
providing fraudulent information to the court. Hoskins v.
Dart, 1');">633 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2011) (dismissal
appropriate where court-issued complaint form clearly warned
plaintiff that failure to provide litigation history would
result in dismissal.)
only did plaintiff disregard this District's instructions
on the complaint form, but he attempted to assign the task to
the court. It is plaintiffs obligation to answer all
questions completely and truthfully and it is his
responsibility, not the court's, to disclose his
litigation history. Failure to do so, particularly when he
seeks to proceed IFP, can be grounds for dismissal.
Hoskins, 633 F.3d at 543; see also Ayoubi v.
Dart, 640 F. App'x, 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2016)
(“no one needs to be warned not to lie to the
judiciary”). Indicating a lapse of memory and a passage
of time is insufficient to meet plaintiffs obligations.
these reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice. Plaintiff is GRANTED
leave to file a “First Amended Complaint, ” in
which he fully discloses his case history, on or before
September 6, 2019. Should plaintiff fail to
file a First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or
consistent with the instructions set forth in this order, the
entire case shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
comply with a court order and/or failure to prosecute his
claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ladien v.
Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051');">128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v.
Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). The dismissal
shall also count as one of plaintiff s three allotted
“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
strongly recommended that plaintiff use and follow the
instructions on the civil rights complaint form designated
for use in this District. He should label the form,
“First Amended Complaint, ” and he should use the
case number for this action (19-cv-557-PGR). To enable
plaintiff to comply with this order, the CLERK OF
COURT is DIRECTED to mail plaintiff
a blank civil rights complaint form.
amended complaint generally supersedes and replaces the
original complaint, rendering the original complaint void.
See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am.,
354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). The First Amended
Complaint must stand on its own without reference to any
previous pleading. Plaintiff must re-file any exhibits he
wishes the court to consider. The First Amended Complaint is
also subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
is further ADVISED that his obligation to
pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time
the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and
payable, regardless of whether plaintiff files a First
Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v.
Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464');">133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a
continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each
opposing party informed of any change in his address; the
court will not independently investigate his whereabouts.
This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a transfer or other change in address
occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay
in the transmission of court documents and may result in
dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IS SO ORDERED.
[1" name="ftn.FN1" id=
"ftn.FN1">1] Sitting by designation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 294(c) and Administrative Order No. 248 of the
United States District Court for the ...