MCDONALD v. DOE et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
ALFRED MCDONALD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2110-LC-HTC
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Alfred McDonald, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the use of excessive force.
Doc. 1. 	Upon review, the undersigned finds the case should be DISMISSED
WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE 	because McDonald 	failed 	to 	truthfully disclose his
litigation history on the complaint form.
This Court’s Local Rules require prisoners and pro se litigants to use the
Court’s complaint form when filing a civil rights complaint. 	See N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
5.7(A). Section VIII of the Court’s approved complaint form requires plaintiffs to
disclose their prior litigation history.1 The complaint form warns plaintiffs that
1 The questions in this section serve several purposes, including assisting the Court in identifying
cases that qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), cases that are related or duplicative, and in
gauging a plaintiff’s litigation experience. 	See Jacobs v. Comerford, 2013 WL 6184052 at * 4
(N.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2013).
Case 3:25-cv-02110-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2110-LC-HTC
“failure to disclose all prior state and federal cases—including, but not limited to
civil cases, habeas cases, and appeals—may result in the dismissal of this case.”
Doc. 1 at 15. Moreover, the complaint form advises plaintiffs to “err on the side of
caution” if they are uncertain about whether a case should be identified. Id.
Question VIII.C asks McDonald to identify “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. at 17. 	McDonald identifies
five (5) cases in response to Question VIII.C and declares “under penalty of perjury”
the information in the complaint, “including [his] litigation history,” is true and
correct. Id. at 19.
However, after an independent review, the Court found at least one federal
case and two state court cases McDonald failed to disclose. In 2001, McDonald filed
a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Middle District of Florida. 	McDonald v.
Moore, 	et 	al., 	8:01-cv-02151-SDM 	(M.D. 	Fla. 	Oct. 	31, 	2002) 	(dismissing
McDonald’s petition for relief as untimely), aff’d, McDonald v. Crosby, et al., No.
02-16233-BB (11th Cir. 2003). And in 2017, McDonald filed two petitions for writ
of mandamus in Leon County, Florida: 2017 CA 002069 (challenging a disciplinary
report (“DR”) for which McDonald lost 60 days gain time and received 52 days in
disciplinary confinement) and 2017 CA 002071 (challenging a DR for which
Case 3:25-cv-02110-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2110-LC-HTC
McDonald 	received 	23 	days 	in 	disciplinary 	confinement).2 See
https://cvweb.leonclerk.com/public/online_services/search_courts/process.asp.
McDonald states in the complaint that he is completing the “section to the best
of [his] ability [he has] no access to a computer to retrieve all the information that
require of this section.” 	Doc. 1 at 18. 	However, McDonald’s lack of computer
access is not an excuse for failing to truthfully disclose his litigation history “because
Plaintiff could have (and should have) requested information about his prior cases
from the appropriate clerks’ offices before he filed a new case. 	See e.g., Harris v.
Dixon, 2025 WL 26840000, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2025). Indeed, district courts
in this circuit, as well as numerous panels of the Eleventh Circuit, have rejected
excuses from prisoners claiming faulty memory or inadequate access to court filings.
See, e.g., Burrell v. Warden I, 857 F. App’x 624, 624-25 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming
district court’s dismissal for failure to disclose even though prisoner claimed he
lacked memory of an omitted lawsuit); Bryan v. Matthews, No. 3:21-cv-456-
LC/ZCB, 2023 WL 9501368, at *3-4 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2023), report and
recommendation 	adopted, 	2024 	WL 	375385 	(N.D. 	Fla. 	Jan. 	31, 	2024)
(recommending dismissal and noting plaintiff’s comment that there “could be more
filed litigation, that he is unaware of” did not relieve his duty to disclose); Shelton v.
2 McDonald received both DRs while serving a life sentence. 	See McDonald v. Department of
Corrections, Order Dismissing Petition, Case No. 2017 CA 2071 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Feb. 21, 2018).
Case 3:25-cv-02110-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2110-LC-HTC
Rohrs, 406 F. App’x 340 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal for failure to disclose
despite prisoner’s contention that he did not remember filing any prior suits and his
records were not accessible).
The Court has the inherent power to dismiss based on a failure to disclose
even a single case. 	See McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2025)
(recognizing court’s inherent authority to dismiss an action for failure to truthfully
disclose litigation history when requested to do so on complaint form). It also has
the inherent power to dismiss based on a failure to comply with orders of the Court,
this Court’s local rules, or for abusing the judicial process. Id. at 1308; see also N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (“If a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a court order,
the Court may strike a pleading, dismiss a claim, enter a default on a claim, take
other appropriate action, or issue an order to show cause why any of these actions
should not be taken.”).
Thus, an appropriate sanction for McDonald’s failure to provide the Court
with true factual responses is to dismiss this case without prejudice. See Bratton v.
Sec’y DOC, 2012 WL 2913171, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2012) (dismissing case
without prejudice when prisoner failed to disclose one prior federal case that was
dismissed 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915(e)(2)); 	Johnson 	v. 	Crawson, 	No.
5:08cv300/RS/EMT, 2010 WL 1380247, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2010) (same); see
also Strickland v. United States, 739 F. App’x 587, 588 (11th Cir. 2018) (“A sanction
Case 3:25-cv-02110-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2110-LC-HTC
less than dismissal would signal that a failure to disclose filings is an infraction
without consequence.”). “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.” 	Rodriguez v. Inch, No. 4:19cv191-RH-HTC, Doc. 52 (N.D. Fla. June 7,
2020). Because this is a dismissal without prejudice, McDonald may initiate a new
suit on these claims, provided he does so within the statute of limitations period.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under this Court’s
inherent power for McDonald’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	The clerk be directed to close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 7 th day of November, 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02110-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/07/25 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2110-LC-HTC
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 its objections upon 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 the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-02110-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/07/25 Page 6 of 6