BUTKO v. WOMACK

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
JOEL BUTKO,
Escambia Co. Inmate # 2000468261,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:26cv1468/TKW/ZCB
DARREL M. WOMACK,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Escambia County Jail proceeding pro se,
has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Having
reviewed 	the 	complaint, 	the 	Court 	believes 	dismissal 	is 	warranted
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 3:26-cv-01468-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 8

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1 Many unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases say the same thing.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 3:26-cv-01468-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 8

3
litigation history and concluding that prisoner’s failure was not excused
by his claimed misunderstanding of the form).
Here, the complaint form required Plaintiff to disclose information
regarding prior civil cases he had filed in state and federal courts. (Doc.
1 at 7-12). Question A of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if he
“had 	any 	case 	in 	federal 	court, 	including 	federal 	appellate 	court,
dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, for failure to state a claim, or prior
to service?” 	(Id. at 8). 	Plaintiff checked “No” in response to Question A
and disclosed no cases. (Id.).
Question B of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if he had
“filed other lawsuits or appeals in state or federal court dealing with the
same facts or issue involved in this case?” 	(Id. at 9). 	Plaintiff checked
“No” in response to Question B and disclosed no cases. (Id.).
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 	your 	conviction 	or 	relating 	to 	the
conditions of your confinement?” 	(Id. at 9). 	Plaintiff checked “No” in
response to Question C and disclosed no cases. (Id. at 9-11).
Case 3:26-cv-01468-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 8

4
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 form, including
my litigation history, is true and correct.” 	(Doc. 1 at 11-12). 	Plaintiff,
therefore, certified that—at the time he filed his complaint in this case
on February 1, 2026—he had fully disclosed his litigation history.2
The 	Court 	has 	researched 	Plaintiff’s 	litigation 	history 	and
discovered that he failed to accurately disclose it. 	According to this
Court’s 	Case 	Management/Electronic 	Case 	Files 	(CM/ECF) 	system,
Plaintiff filed at least the following undisclosed action before filing his
complaint:
• 	Butko v. Escambia County Jail, No. 3:21cv1444/MCR/ZCB (N.D.
Fla.) (§ 1983 action alleging constitutional violations based on, inter
alia, deprivation of property and denial of medical treatment by jail
officials) (dismissed prior to service on September 27, 2022, for
failure to comply with Court orders).3
2 There does not appear to be a date stamp on the complaint. 	At this
stage, the Court assumes Plaintiff gave the complaint to prison officials
for mailing the day he signed it—February 1, 2026. (Doc. 1 at 12).
3 Plaintiff in the undisclosed action identified himself as “Joel Butko”
with Escambia County Jail inmate number “2000468261.” Plaintiff here
Case 3:26-cv-01468-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Because the undisclosed action was a “lawsuit . . . in state or federal court
. . . relating to the conditions of [Plaintiff’s] confinement[,]” this case
should have been disclosed in response to Question C of the litigation
history section of Plaintiff’s complaint. 	(Doc. 1 at 9-10). 	Additionally,
because the undisclosed action was a “case in federal court . . . dismissed
. . . prior to service[,]” this case should have been disclosed in response to
Question A of the litigation history section. (Id. at 8). But Plaintiff failed
to reference this case anywhere in his complaint.
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
Court to determine whether any issues raised in the current action have
been previously decided by another judge. These purposes are thwarted,
similarly identifies himself. (Doc. 1 at 2). Thus, it is apparent that these
individuals are the same person.
Case 3:26-cv-01468-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 8

6
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
Case 3:26-cv-01468-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 8

7
omit their litigation history, thus draining the judicial system’s time and
resources.”).4
As detailed above, Plaintiff 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.5 	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. 	This case be DISMISSED without prejudice under the
Court’s inherent power to manage its docket and enforce the Local Rules,
4 Plaintiff’s failure to investigate his litigation history prior to filing this
case does not excuse his inaccurate disclosure. See Bashir v. Meherg, No.
5:22cv142, 2022 WL 4471965, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2022).
5 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) (finding no
abuse of discretion where district court did not provide a prisoner an
opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose lawsuits that should have
been disclosed initially).
Case 3:26-cv-01468-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 Page 7 of 8

8
based on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	All pending motions be DENIED as moot
3. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 2nd day of March 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 3:26-cv-01468-TKW-ZCB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 Page 8 of 8