Williams v. Mayfield
| Decision Date | 30 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 14-369 (DWF/FLN) |
| Parties | Dale A. Williams, Sr., Plaintiff, v. Paul Mayfield; Thom Lundquist; Courtney Menten; Justine Wandling, MA; Kellie Bodie-Miner, MSW, LISCW; Kathryn Lockie, MA, LPCC; Jannine Hebert, Executive Clinical Director of MSOP, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Dale A. Williams, Sr., pro se; and Theresa M. Bevilacqua, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP, counsel for Plaintiff.1
Anthony R. Noss, Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, counsel for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A)2 by Defendants.3 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion and dismisses Plaintiff's case without prejudice.
Plaintiff Dale Williams is an individual who has been civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program ("MSOP"). In 2013, Williams' daughter and granddaughter sought to visit him. (Id. ¶ 9.) The visitation application sent to MSOP was denied. (See id.) In response, Williams commenced this action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
In connection with the filing of his original Complaint in February 2014, Williams filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") and an accompanying affidavit claiming that he was unable to pay court filing fees. (Doc. No. 2; Doc. No. 3("IFP Affidavit").) On February 5, 2014, Williams asserted the following in his IFP Affidavit:
(IFP Affidavit ¶¶ 5-6, 8.) Based on this sworn testimony, the Court granted Williams IFP status and his court fees were waived. (See Doc. No. 6.)
During his March 25, 2016 deposition, Williams admitted that, when he filed for IFP status, it was incorrect to say that he was unable to pay court fees and costs. (Doc. No. 112 ("Noss Aff.") ¶ 2, Ex. 1 ("Williams Dep.") at 213-14.) Deposition testimony revealed that, around February 5, 2014, Williams had at least $16,000 in veterans' benefits, that he received at least $2,873 in veterans' benefits monthly, and that he had two bank accounts—none of which was disclosed on his application. (Id. at 53, 194-95, 203-09, 212.) Williams claimed that he did not disclose such information because he did not think that his veterans' benefits counted when applying for IFP status. (Id. at 210-13.) Williams further testified that he indicated only having $100 on the IFP Affidavit because he had been told to do so by another committed individual at MSOP. (Id. at 209-11.) Williams stated that, according to another individual at MSOP, "the normal procedure is to put down a hundred dollars." (Id. at 209.)
In responding to Defendants' briefing on dismissal, Plaintiff has submitted a declaration stating: "Before this litigation, I have never filed an in forma pauperis application in the federal court, and I was unfamiliar with the process and requirements." (Doc. No. 116 ("Williams Decl.") ¶ 3.) Consistent with his deposition testimony, he also provided the following explanation for his failure to disclose his veterans' benefits: "In preparing my in forma pauperis application, I understood that my veterans payments, which are my sole source of money, should not be included in my application." (Id. ¶ 4.) Finally, Plaintiff clarified that the assets that he failed to disclose consisted of veterans' benefits, "including the money in [his] bank accounts." (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendants now seek dismissal of the case with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). (See Doc. No. 111.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), the statute governing IFP proceedings, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the [affiant's] allegation of poverty is untrue." Where an individual's allegation of poverty is found to be false, dismissal is mandatory.4 Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000) (); see also Thomas v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 2002) . The district court, however, retains discretion as to whether dismissal will be with or without prejudice. Thomas, 288 F.3d at 306. In exercising discretion under the statute, courts should determine whether the plaintiff acted in bad faith, and if so, whether dismissal with prejudice would be an appropriate sanction upon consideration of all the circumstances.
The Court concludes, and neither party appears to genuinely dispute, that Williams' allegation of poverty was, in fact, untrue.5 Williams stated in his IFP Affidavit that he had a total of $100 when, according to his deposition testimony, he had access to at least $16,000. If the Court had been aware of this information at the outset, IFP status almost certainly would not have been granted. Accordingly, dismissal is required under § 1915(e)(2)(A), and the central issue before the Court is whether such dismissal should be with or without prejudice.
In exercising discretion under § 1915(e)(2)(A), the Court must first consider whether Williams acted in bad faith. The Eighth Circuit—explicitly following the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal—has held that "a district court has the discretion to dismiss a case with prejudice where a plaintiff has in bad faith filed a false affidavit of poverty." Romesburg v. Trickey, 908 F.2d 258, 260 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Harris v. Cuyler, 664 F.2d 388, 389-91 (3rd Cir. 1981); Thompson v. Carlson, 705 F.2d 868, 869 (6th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); Dawson v. Lennon, 797 F.2d 934, 935 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)); see also Finan v. Good Earth Tools, Inc., 565 F.3d 1076, 1080 (8th Cir. 2009). However, "dismissal with prejudice is a drastic sanction which should be exercised sparingly." Romesburg, 908 F.2d at 260 (citing Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986)). Thus, to the extent evidence of bad faith is lacking, dismissal with prejudice is not appropriate. See Harris, 664 F.2d at 391 (); see also Matthews v. Gaither, 902 F.2d 877, 881 (11th Cir. 1990) .
Williams argues that he did not act in bad faith and, as such, dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate sanction in this case. Specifically, Williams emphasizes that he had no prior experience with civil litigation or IFP procedure, and he asserts that he completed the IFP application to the best of his understanding, informed by the advice ofother individuals at MSOP. Further, Williams argues that he was clear and forthcoming regarding his assets when asked about them during the deposition, and explained that his understanding was that veterans' benefits did not count toward IFP status. He argues this is a reasonable misunderstanding because veterans' benefits are not counted as income for federal income tax purposes.
In contrast, Defendants argue that the record provides ample evidence that Williams filed the false affidavit of poverty in bad faith, warranting dismissal with prejudice. First, Defendants assert that Williams' failure to correct the record and provide a credible explanation for his misstatements is evidence of bad faith. Specifically, Defendants contend that Williams' argument that he relied on the advice of others is insufficient and has been rejected by the Eighth Circuit. Defendants further argue that bad faith is evinced by the materiality of Williams' omissions and aver that Plaintiff improperly hid information while substituting his own judgment for that of the Court.
When evaluating bad faith in this context, courts may consider a variety of factors, including the materiality of misrepresentations, a plaintiff's familiarity with federal litigation and the IFP system, and whether the plaintiff has provided a credible explanation. Bad faith may be evident, for example, where a plaintiff's deliberate misrepresentation of assets materially impacted IFP eligibility. See Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443-45 (7th Cir. 2016) (); Bell v. Dobbs Int'l Serv., 6F. Supp. 2d 863, 864-65 (E.D. Mo. 1998) (). Materiality alone, however, is not sufficient to establish bad faith. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Shiro, No. 10 Civ. 8019 (LTS) (JLC), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77554, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2011) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial