RIVERS v. MCBEE

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
PATRICK RIVERS,
FDOC # T62470,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:25cv15/TKW/ZCB
R. MCBEE,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, 	a 	prisoner of the 	Florida 	Department 	of Corrections
(FDOC) proceeding 	pro se, has filed a second amended civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(Doc. 11). 	Defendant has moved to
dismiss, and Plaintiff has responded. (Docs. 27, 30). Defendant’s motion
to 	dismiss 	should 	be 	granted 	because 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	accurately
disclosed his litigation history despite being required to do so.
The Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida require pro se
prisoners in civil rights cases to file such cases using the Court-approved
complaint form. 	See 	N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A). 	The complaint form
requires the disclosure of a prisoner’s litigation history. 	The form must
be signed under penalty of perjury. 	The Eleventh Circuit has held that
a prisoner’s case may be dismissed without prejudice for failing to
Case 1:25-cv-00015-TKW-ZCB Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 7

2
accurately disclose litigation history on the complaint form. 	See McNair
v. 	Johnson, 	143 	F.4th 	1301, 	1307-08 	(11th 	Cir. 	2025) 	(affirming
“[d]ismissal without prejudice [as] an appropriate exercise of the district
court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the local
rules” where the plaintiff “violated the local rules by failing to disclose
his full litigation history, as required by the duly adopted standard
complaint form”).1 	Dismissal is appropriate, even if the prisoner claims
that a misunderstanding caused his failure to accurately disclose his
litigation history. See Redmon v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 414 F. App’x
221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal for failure to disclose
1 There are a lot of unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases that say the same
thing. See, e.g., Allen v. Santiago, No. 22-11946, 2023 WL 5745494, at *1
(11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2023) (affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case
because he failed to disclose all of his relevant prior litigation); Kendrick
v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (11th
Cir. July 1, 2022) (stating that “[a] plaintiff’s bad-faith litigiousness or
manipulative tactics, which include lying about one’s litigation history,
warrant dismissal”); Jones v. Szalai, 778 F. App’x 847, 848 (11th Cir.
2019) (affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case as an appropriate
sanction for plaintiff’s failing to disclose a prior case on the complaint
form); Strickland v. United States, 739 F. App’x 587, 588 (11th Cir. 2018)
(affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case because he misrepresented
the number of cases he had previously filed in the district court); Wynn
v. Postal Serv., 735 F. App’x 704, 705 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal
of pro se plaintiff’s case after he failed to disclose a habeas action because
the habeas action fell “squarely within the complaint form’s disclosure
requirements”).
Case 1:25-cv-00015-TKW-ZCB Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 7

3
litigation history and concluding that prisoner’s failure was not excused
by his claimed misunderstanding of the form).
Here, the complaint form—which Plaintiff copied onto his own
paper—required 	Plaintiff 	to 	disclose 	information 	regarding 	prior
lawsuits in state and federal courts. 	(Doc. 11 at 11). 	Specifically,
Question C of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if he had filed
any “other lawsuit, habeas corpus petition, or appeal in state or federal
court either challenging his conviction or relating to the conditions of his
confinement.” (Id.). Plaintiff checked “No” in response to Question C and
disclosed no cases. (Id.).2
At the end of the complaint form, Plaintiff signed his name after
the following certification: “I declare, under penalty of perjury, that all of
the information stated above and included on or with this complaint,
including my litigation history, is true and correct.” (Id. at 11). Plaintiff,
therefore, certified that—at the time he filed his complaint in this case
on April 29, 2025—he had fully disclosed his litigation history.
Defendant has come forward with evidence showing that Plaintiff
2 Indeed, Plaintiff checked “No” in response to all three of the questions
in the Prior Litigation section of the complaint and disclosed no cases.
(Id. at 10-11).
Case 1:25-cv-00015-TKW-ZCB Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 7

4
filed the following undisclosed state appeals before filing his complaint:
• 	Rivers v. State of Florida, No. 2D21-0863 (filed March 17, 2021 and
closed December 22, 2021);
• 	Rivers v. State of Florida, No. 2D2019-1983 (filed May 24, 2019).
Defendant also states that Plaintiff has a third undisclosed appeal in
state court, but he does not provide the case number. 	(Doc. 27 at 5-6).
All three appeals challenged Plaintiff’s conviction. 	(Id. at 6). 	Because
the undisclosed actions were “appeal[s] in state or federal court . . .
challenging his conviction” the cases should have been disclosed in
response to Question C of the litigation history section of Plaintiff’s
complaint. 	But Plaintiff failed to reference the cases anywhere in his
complaint. Plaintiff admits that “he did not properly inform the court of
his [litigation history] as instructed on the civil rights complaint form.”
(Doc. 30 at 6).
The prior litigation portion of the complaint form serves important
purposes. First, it permits efficient consideration of whether the prisoner
is entitled to pursue the current action under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision. 	Second, it allows the Court to
determine 	whether 	an 	action 	is 	related 	to, 	or otherwise 	should 	be
considered in conjunction with, another lawsuit. 	Third, it enables the
Case 1:25-cv-00015-TKW-ZCB Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Court to determine whether any issues raised in the current action have
been previously decided by another judge. These purposes are thwarted,
and the efficiency of the judicial system diminished, when a prisoner
misstates his litigation history on the complaint form.
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from following the
rules, including the requirement that litigants be truthful with the Court.
See Kendrick v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425,
at *3 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022) (stating that pro se litigants “owe the same
duty of candor to the court as imposed on any other litigant”). As another
judge on this Court has explained: “If the requirement for prisoner
plaintiffs to disclose their prior lawsuits is to serve its purpose, a plaintiff
must provide accurate information. If word got around the prisons that
inaccurate or incomplete information could be provided with no effective
sanction, the form would serve little purpose. And word does get around
the prisons.” 	Rodriguez v. Inch, No. 4:19cv191, 2020 WL 3050231, at *1
(N.D. Fla. June 7, 2020); see also Strickland, 739 F. App’x at 588 (“A
sanction less than dismissal would signal that a failure to disclose filings
is an infraction without consequence. 	It would invite other prisoners to
omit their litigation history, thus draining the judicial system’s time and
resources.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00015-TKW-ZCB Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 5 of 7

6
As detailed above, Plaintiff admits he misstated his prior litigation
history on the complaint form. 	Consistent with the Eleventh Circuit
precedent previously cited and the Local Rules, this matter should be
dismissed 	without 	prejudice.3 	See 	McNair, 	143 	F.4th 	at 	1307-08
(affirming dismissal without prejudice where pro se prisoner failed to
accurately 	disclose 	his 	litigation 	history 	as 	required 	by 	the 	Court-
approved complaint form and the Local Rules); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
41.1 (authorizing dismissal for a party’s failure to comply with an
applicable rule or order).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss,” (Doc. 27), be GRANTED
and this case be DISMISSED without prejudice under the Court’s
inherent power to manage its docket and enforce the Local Rules, based
on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
3 Providing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose
the previous lawsuit would be an inadequate sanction. See Young v. Sec’y
for Dep’t of Corr., 380 F. App’x 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that
district court did not abuse its discretion by not providing a prisoner with
an opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose lawsuits that should
have been disclosed initially).
Case 1:25-cv-00015-TKW-ZCB Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 6 of 7

7
and close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 26th day of February 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the Report and Recommendation.
Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the
Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	An objecting party must
serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. 	A party who fails to
object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained
in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal
the 	district 	court’s 	order 	based 	on 	unobjected-to 	factual 	and 	legal
conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:25-cv-00015-TKW-ZCB Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 7 of 7