Riley v. Taylor et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THERON RILEY, JR., 	*
*
Plaintiff, 	*
* CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-00193-KD-B
vs. 	*
*
RAYMOND TAYLOR, et al., 	*
*
Defendants. 	*
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action is before the Court on review.1 	Plaintiff Theron
Riley, Jr. (“Riley”), who is proceeding without an attorney and is
presently 	confined 	at 	the 	Mobile 	County 	Metro 	Jail, 	filed 	a
complaint 	seeking 	relief 	under 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983 	and 	a 	motion 	to
proceed without prepayment of fees. 	(Docs. 1, 2). 	Because Riley
is a prisoner seeking to proceed in forma pauperis against officers
or 	employees 	of 	a 	governmental 	entity, 	the 	Court 	conducted 	an
initial 	screening 	review 	of 	his 	complaint 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§§
1915(e)(2)(B) 	and 	1915A. 	As 	relevant 	here, 	§ 	1915(e)(2)(B)
requires 	a 	district 	court 	to 	dismiss 	the 	action 	of 	a 	plaintiff
proceeding 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	if 	the 	court 	determines 	that 	the
action 	is 	frivolous 	or 	malicious. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
1 This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge
for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and S.D.
Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R).
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 1 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

2
Similarly, 	under 	§ 	1915A(b), 	a 	court 	must 	dismiss 	a 	prisoner’s
complaint against an officer or employee of a governmental entity
if 	it 	determines 	that 	the 	complaint 	is 	frivolous 	or 	malicious.
Id. 	at 	§ 	1915A(b)(1). 	“An 	action 	is 	malicious 	when 	a 	prisoner
misrepresents 	his 	prior 	litigation 	history 	on 	a 	complaint 	form
requiring disclosure of such history and signs the complaint under
penalty 	of 	perjury.” 	Morrell 	v. 	Georgia, 	2023 	U.S. 	App. 	LEXIS
4738, at *1, 2023 WL 5051186, at *1 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2023).
Riley 	filed 	his 	complaint 	in 	this 	action 	on 	this 	Court’s
standard 	form 	for 	a 	prisoner 	complaint 	under 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983.
(See 	Doc. 	1). 	During 	the 	screening 	process, 	the 	undersigned
discovered that Riley misrepresented his litigation history under
the 	penalty 	of 	perjury 	in 	his 	complaint 	form. 	In 	his 	complaint,
Riley 	answered 	“Yes” 	when 	asked 	whether 	he 	had 	previously 	filed
any other lawsuits in state or federal court dealing with the same
or similar facts involved in this action. 	(Id. at 3). 	Riley also
answered 	“Yes” 	when 	asked 	whether 	he 	had 	previously 	filed 	other
lawsuits 	in 	state 	or 	federal 	court 	relating 	to 	his 	imprisonment.
(Id.). 	When prompted on the complaint form to describe each such
lawsuit, Riley referenced a single case, which appears to be Theron
Riley, 	Jr. 	v. 	Steve 	Billy, 	et 	al., 	No. 	1:21-cv-00203-JB-B 	(S.D.
Ala. 	2021) 	(“Riley 	v. 	Billy”). 	(Id.). 	In 	fact, 	however, 	Riley
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 2 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

3
has 	previously 	filed 	multiple 	lawsuits 	in 	federal 	court 	relating
to 	his 	imprisonment. 	Accordingly, 	after 	reviewing 	the 	present
complaint 	and 	Riley’s 	prior 	cases, 	it 	is 	recommended 	that 	this
action 	be 	DISMISSED 	without 	prejudice 	as 	malicious 	for 	abuse 	of
the judicial process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and
1915A(b)(1), 	because 	Riley 	affirmatively 	misrepresented 	his
litigation history to the Court.
I. 	DISCUSSION
In 	this 	action, 	Riley 	sues 	two 	correctional 	officers 	and 	a
nurse 	at 	the 	Escambia 	County 	Jail. 	(See 	Doc. 	1 	at 	1, 	4-6, 	8-9).
Riley 	claims 	that 	the 	officers 	denied 	him 	medical 	attention 	and
subjected 	him 	to 	inhumane 	conditions, 	and 	that 	the 	nurse 	denied
him 	medical 	attention. 	(Id. 	at 	5-6, 	8). 	Riley 	alleges 	that 	he
was “booked” in the Escambia County Jail on April 12, 2025, “with
bloody 	wounds 	& 	lacerations 	to 	[his] 	face/chin 	& 	back 	from 	blows
with cement cylinder blocks.” 	(Id. at 4). 	Riley alleges that the
sheriff’s deputy who transported him to the jail told the officers
to 	take 	him 	“to 	medical 	as 	soon 	as 	possible,” 	but 	he 	“was 	never
taken.” 	(Id.). 	Riley states that he saw the nurse the following
day 	and 	showed 	her 	his 	wounds, 	but 	“she 	did 	nothing 	but 	laughed”
and 	told 	Riley 	“she 	was 	going 	home.” 	(Id.). 	Riley 	also 	states
that he was not taken “serious[ly]” when he complained to officers
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 3 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

4
and the jail warden about various hazardous conditions at the jail.
(Id. 	at 	5, 	8-9). 	Riley 	asks 	that 	the 	Court 	“compensate 	[him],
help 	other 	inmates, 	shut 	the 	jail 	down 	after 	a[n] 	inspection 	or
fix/update it [and] hold employees accountable.” 	(Id. at 7).
In screening Riley’s complaint, the undersigned reviewed the
records of this and other federal courts to determine whether Riley
had 	previously 	filed 	any 	undisclosed 	lawsuits 	relating 	to 	his
imprisonment or dealing with the same or similar facts involved in
this action.2 	From those records, the undersigned ascertained that
Riley 	previously 	filed 	at 	least 	two 	other 	cases 	relating 	to 	his
imprisonment 	that 	he 	did 	not 	disclose 	in 	his 	complaint, 	namely,
Theron 	Riley, 	Jr. 	v. 	Calvin 	Shaw, 	et 	al., 	No. 	2:22-cv-00357-JB-B
(S.D. Ala. 2022) (“Riley v. Shaw”), and Theron Evan Riley, Jr. v.
Kendrick Boyd, et al., No. 2:23-cv-00498-RAH-CSC (M.D. Ala. 2023)
(“Riley 	v. 	Boyd”). 	In 	both 	of 	those 	lawsuits, 	Riley 	complained
that 	correctional 	defendants 	subjected 	him 	to 	cruel 	and 	unusual
punishment. 	Moreover, 	in 	Riley 	v. 	Boyd, 	Riley 	alleged 	that
correctional 	officials 	denied 	him 	access 	to 	forms 	and 	other
services needed to prosecute his legal claims, and he stated “when
2 This 	Court 	may 	take 	judicial 	notice 	of 	its 	own 	records 	and 	the
records 	of 	other 	federal 	courts. 	Nguyen 	v. 	United 	States, 	556
F.3d 	1244, 	1259 	n.7 	(11th 	Cir. 	2009); 	United 	States 	v. 	Rey, 	811
F.2d 1453, 1457 n.5 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Glover, 179
F.3d 1300, 1302 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999).
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 4 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

5
[the prison] administration find out . . . that I’m filing this I
think they will do something to retaliate or harm me.” 	See Riley
v. Boyd, ECF No. 1-1.3
As he was required to do, Riley drafted his complaint in the
instant case using this Court’s standard § 1983 prisoner complaint
form. 	(See 	Doc. 	1). 	The 	form 	directs 	prisoner 	plaintiffs 	to
disclose 	whether 	they 	have 	(A) 	filed 	any 	other 	lawsuits 	in 	state
or 	federal 	court 	dealing 	with 	the 	same 	or 	similar 	facts 	involved
in the present action, and/or (B) filed other lawsuits in state or
federal 	court 	relating 	to 	their 	imprisonment. 	(Id. 	at 	3). 	The
form 	directs 	that 	if 	the 	answer 	to 	either 	of 	those 	questions 	is
yes, 	the 	plaintiff 	is 	to 	describe 	each 	lawsuit 	in 	the 	space
provided 	and 	describe 	additional 	lawsuits 	on 	a 	separate 	piece 	of
paper if necessary. 	(Id.).
Notwithstanding 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	complaint 	form 	in 	this
action 	expressly 	directed 	Riley 	to 	describe 	each 	of 	his 	prior
3 	Riley 	makes 	similar 	claims 	in 	the 	instant 	lawsuit. 	In
particular, 	Riley 	states 	that 	“due 	to 	me 	filing 	this 	[lawsuit]
Escambia County is liable to railroad, blackmail, or over sentence
me just for me notify[ing] a higher court.” 	(Doc. 1 at 9). 	Riley
further 	states: 	“This 	is 	my 	2nd 	complaint 	against 	this 	jail 	I
settled 	for 	67,000 	and 	now 	they 	are 	retaliating.” 	(Id.). 	Riley
also 	claims 	that 	Escambia 	County 	Jail 	officials 	“are 	hindering
[him] 	from 	exercising 	[his] 	right 	to 	sue” 	and 	“will 	not” 	provide
the financial statement or “complete the [certificate he] need[s]
to continue [his] 1983 prisoner complaint” in this action. 	(Doc.
2-1).
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 5 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

6
lawsuits relating to his imprisonment or dealing with the same or
similar 	facts 	involved 	in 	this 	action, 	Riley 	referenced 	only 	one
prior lawsuit and did not disclose the existence of Riley v. Shaw
or Riley v. Boyd, despite the relative recency of those lawsuits,
the 	fact 	that 	they 	relate 	to 	his 	imprisonment, 	and 	the 	fact 	that
both this lawsuit and Riley v. Boyd contain allegations of feared
retaliation 	and 	interference 	with 	access 	to 	the 	courts. 	Riley
then 	proceeded 	to 	swear 	or 	affirm 	under 	penalty 	of 	perjury 	that
the facts set out in his complaint were true and correct. 	(Id. at
7).
“Prisoners 	are 	required 	to 	accurately 	disclose 	their
litigation 	history 	on 	the 	complaint 	form 	under 	the 	penalty 	of
perjury.” 	Franklin 	v. 	Leon 	Cty. 	Sheriffs 	Off., 	2022 	U.S. 	Dist.
LEXIS 	235321, 	at 	*8, 	2022 	WL 	18231678, 	at 	*4 	(N.D. 	Fla. 	Dec. 	6,
2022), 	report 	and 	recommendation 	adopted, 	2023 	U.S. 	Dist. 	LEXIS
5112, 	2023 	WL 	163254 	(N.D. 	Fla. 	Jan. 	11, 	2023). 	The 	Court’s 	§
1983 complaint form requests information about prior actions from
a 	prisoner 	plaintiff 	to 	assist 	in 	determining 	whether 	the
prisoner’s 	action 	is 	barred 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915(g),4 whether
4 Section 1915(g) provides:
In 	no 	event 	shall 	a 	prisoner 	bring 	a 	civil 	action 	[in
forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, 	while 	incarcerated 	or 	detained 	in 	any
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 6 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

7
the 	action 	is 	connected 	to 	another 	action, 	and 	whether 	the
plaintiff 	is 	familiar 	with 	litigating 	his 	claims. 	See 	Doctor 	v.
Nichols, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124946, at *9-10, 2015 WL 5546397,
at 	*3 	(N.D. 	Fla. 	Aug. 	19, 	2015). 	When 	the 	prisoner 	fails 	to
provide information about all of his prior actions on the complaint
form, 	the 	court 	is 	deprived 	of 	this 	knowledge 	and 	is 	forced 	to
expend more time and resources than would otherwise be necessary.
Doctor, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124946, at *10, 2015 WL 5546397, at
*3.
Moreover, 	the 	judicial 	system 	is 	structured 	so 	that 	when 	a
plaintiff files a civil action, he certifies to the court that his
signed pleading, “to the best of [his] knowledge, information, and
belief, 	formed 	after 	an 	inquiry 	reasonable 	under 	the
circumstances[,] 	. 	. 	. 	is 	not 	being 	presented 	for 	any 	improper
purpose, 	. 	. 	. 	[and] 	the 	factual 	contentions 	have 	evidentiary
support . . . .” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1) & (3). 	The purpose of
Rule 	11 	is 	to 	impress 	on 	the 	signer 	his 	personal 	responsibility
for validating “the truth and legal reasonableness” of the document
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the
United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 7 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

8
he 	is 	filing, 	which 	assists 	in 	conserving 	the 	court 	system’s
resources 	and 	in 	avoiding 	unnecessary 	proceedings. 	Bus. 	Guides,
Inc. 	v. 	Chromatic 	Commc’ns 	Enters., 	Inc., 	498 	U.S. 	533, 	543, 	547
(1991).
“A 	plaintiff’s 	affirmative 	misrepresentation 	regarding 	his
prior 	litigation 	history, 	when 	the 	complaint 	form 	required
disclosure 	of 	such 	history 	and 	the 	plaintiff’s 	statements 	were
made 	under 	penalty 	of 	perjury, 	constitutes 	abuse 	of 	the 	judicial
process 	warranting 	dismissal 	of 	the 	case 	without 	prejudice 	as
‘malicious’ under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1).” 	Ealy v.
Corr. Corp. of Am., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173850, at *2-3, 2015 WL
9647546, 	at 	*1 	(N.D. 	Fla. 	Dec. 	18, 	2015) 	(collecting 	Eleventh
Circuit 	cases 	affirming 	dismissals 	of 	actions 	without 	prejudice
where 	plaintiffs 	failed 	to 	disclose 	their 	prior 	litigation
history), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
1023, 2016 WL 75074 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2016).
Given 	the 	recency 	of 	his 	undisclosed 	lawsuits, 	Riley 	is 	(or
certainly 	should 	be) 	well 	aware 	that 	Riley 	v. 	Billy 	is 	not 	the
only action he has filed in state or federal court relating to his
imprisonment. 	Accordingly, there can be little question that when
Riley filed the complaint in the instant action, he knowingly chose
not 	to 	list 	all 	of 	his 	prior 	actions 	and 	then 	proceeded 	to 	sign
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 8 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

9
his 	complaint 	under 	penalty 	of 	perjury, 	notwithstanding 	his
misrepresentation. 	Because Riley was not truthful with the Court
about 	his 	prior 	litigation 	on 	his 	complaint 	form, 	his 	action 	is
subject to being dismissed as malicious for abuse of the judicial
process. 	The 	only 	reason 	the 	undersigned 	would 	not 	recommend
dismissing this action without prejudice is if the present action
could 	not 	be 	refiled 	because 	the 	two-year 	statute 	of 	limitations
for a § 1983 action had expired. 	However, Riley’s complaint makes
clear 	that 	the 	actions 	complained 	of 	in 	this 	case 	occurred 	no
earlier than April 12, 2025. 	(See Doc. 1 at 4-6). 	Thus, there is
no question that Riley has the ability to refile his action before
the 	two-year 	statute 	of 	limitations 	expires, 	if 	he 	elects 	to 	do
so. 	Because Riley’s claims can be refiled, this action is due to
be 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice 	as 	malicious 	for 	Riley’s 	abuse 	of
the judicial process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(i) and
1915A(b)(1).
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that this action
be 	DISMISSED 	without 	prejudice 	as 	malicious 	for 	abuse 	of 	the
judicial 	process 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§§ 	1915(e)(2)(b)(i) 	and
1915A(b)(1).
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 9 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

10
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A 	copy 	of 	this 	report 	and 	recommendation 	shall 	be 	served 	on 	all
parties 	in 	the 	manner 	provided 	by 	law. 	Any 	party 	who 	objects 	to
this 	recommendation 	or 	anything 	in 	it 	must, 	within 	fourteen 	(14)
days of the date of service of this document, file specific written
objections with the Clerk of this Court. 	See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c). 	The parties should
note 	that 	under 	Eleventh 	Circuit 	Rule 	3-1, 	“[a] 	party 	failing 	to
object 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or 	recommendations
contained 	in 	a 	report 	and 	recommendation 	in 	accordance 	with 	the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge
on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period
for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object.
In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review
on 	appeal 	for 	plain 	error 	if 	necessary 	in 	the 	interests 	of
justice.” 	11th Cir. R. 3-1.
In 	order 	to 	be 	specific, 	an 	objection 	must 	identify 	the
specific 	finding 	or 	specify 	the 	place 	in 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
report 	and 	recommendation 	where 	the 	disputed 	determination 	is
found. 	An 	objection 	that 	merely 	incorporates 	by 	reference 	or
refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 10 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>

11
DONE this 13th day of May, 2025.
_ 	/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00193-KD-B Doc# 5 Filed 05/13/25 Page 11 of 11 PageID#
<pageID>