GRANTLEY v. BALTZELL et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
DERRICK GRANTLEY,
FDOC Inmate #198328,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv1881/TKW/ZCB
M. BALTZELL, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is a Florida prisoner who 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
accurately disclose litigation history on the complaint form. 	See McNair
Case 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 10

2
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 his failure to accurately disclose his litigation history was caused by
a misunderstanding or lack of memory. See Beshears v. Marion Cnty. Bd.
of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2020 WL 5949790, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020) (“The
District Court acted within its discretion in finding that Mr. Beshears’s
1 There are a lot of unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases that say the same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[s] 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 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 10

3
explanation 	for 	his 	failure 	to 	disclose 	this 	information—…that 	he
suffered from memory loss—was not a credible or persuasive reason for
failing to disclose his numerous other lawsuits.”); Redmon v. Lake Cnty.
Sheriff’s 	Office, 	414 	F. 	App’x 	221, 	226 	(11th 	Cir. 	2011) 	(affirming
dismissal for failure to disclose 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 10, 14-17).2 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 14). 	Plaintiff answered “Yes” and admitted he has
filed such cases and has “3 strikes against him.” (Id.). Plaintiff indicated
he “does not have any information regarding his past litigation.” (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
2 The Court refers to the page numbers automatically assigned by the
Court’s electronic filing system.
Case 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 10

4
federal 	court 	either 	challenging 	your 	conviction 	or 	relating 	to 	the
conditions of your confinement?” (Id. at 15). Plaintiff answered “Yes” in
response to Question C and disclosed one federal case: Grantley v. Dixon,
Case No. 1:25cv21396 (S.D. Fla.). 	(Id. at 16). 	Plaintiff added, “I do not
have any of the information regarding the other petitions I’ve filed.” (Id.).
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.” 	(Id. at 17-18).
Plaintiff, therefore, certified that—at the time he filed his complaint case
on September 30, 2025—he had fully disclosed his litigation history.
The 	Court 	has 	researched 	Plaintiff’s 	litigation 	history 	and
discovered that he failed to accurately disclose it. According to the Public
Access to Court’s Electronic Records (PACER) system, Plaintiff filed the
following undisclosed actions before filing his complaint:
• 	Grantley v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., Case No. 1:25cv20809 (S.D. Fla.)
(habeas 	corpus 	petition 	filed 	in 	February 	2025 	challenging
conviction);
Case 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 10

5
• 	Grantley v. Rollins, Case No. 5:22cv54 (N.D. Fla.) (federal § 1983
lawsuit against FDOC prison official filed in 2022 relating to
conditions of confinement);
• 	Grantley v. Danley, et al., 3:17cv678 (M.D. Fla.) (federal § 1983
lawsuit against FDOC prison officials filed in 2017 relating to
conditions of confinement); and
• 	Grantley v. Starling, et al., 3:16cv1147 (M.D. Fla.) (federal § 1983
lawsuit against FDOC prison officials filed in 2016 relating to
conditions of confinement).
How does the Court know that this Derrick Grantley and the
Derrick Grantley who filed the listed cases are the same person? 	The
petitioner/plaintiff in the listed cases identified himself with the same
FDOC inmate number as Plaintiff identified himself with in this case,
FDOC Inmate #198328.
Because the cases listed above were habeas corpus petitions or
lawsuits challenging Plaintiff’s conviction or conditions of confinement,
they 	should 	have 	been 	disclosed 	in 	response 	to 	Question 	C 	of 	the
litigation history section of Plaintiff’s complaint. 	(Doc. 1 at 15-16).3
3 In addition to these cases, the Court found another federal § 1983
Case 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 10

6
Plaintiff failed to reference any of these four cases anywhere in his
complaint. His failure to disclose is not excused by his assertion that he
does not have information regarding them. See White v. Quinn, 2025 WL
2202405, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 16, 2025), adopted 2025 WL 2198610 (N.D.
Fla. Aug. 1, 2025) (stating that a prisoner’s purported lack of memory or
lack of access to his legal materials does not justify his failure to
truthfully disclose his litigation history); 	Sheffield v. Brown, 2023 WL
9105658 at *3 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2023) (“Plaintiff could have requested
his 	litigation 	history 	from 	the 	appropriate 	clerks 	of 	the 	various
courts...[a]s such, Plaintiff simply cannot blame his faulty memory for his
failure to respond to the questions.”); Bashir v. Meherg, No. 5:22cv142,
2022 WL 4471965, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2022) (Wetherell, J.) (“The
Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that he does not have access
to PACER to research his prior cases and, as a result, he had to rely on
his memory to recall his litigation history. 	Even if that is true, it does
not 	excuse 	Plaintiff’s 	untruthful 	answers 	to 	the 	litigation 	history
lawsuit relating to conditions of confinement, a federal case dismissed
prior to service, and a federal appeal dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff did
not disclose any of those cases even though he should have disclosed them
in response to Questions A and C of the complaint form.
Case 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 10

7
questions on the civil rights complaint form because, like every other
inmate, Plaintiff has an obligation to maintain information (or at least a
list of case numbers) for all of his prior cases, and if he does not have that
information, he can (and should) request it from the appropriate clerks’
offices before filing a new case.”) (emphasis added and internal citations
omitted).
The prior litigation section 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,
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 McNair, 143 F. 4th at 1307 (stating that “[a]lthough a pro se litigant’s
Case 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 7 of 10

8
filings are construed liberally, they must comply with procedural rules.”);
see also 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”).
The undersigned agrees with another judge on this Court who stated the
following: “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)
(Hinkle, J.); 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.”).
As detailed above, Plaintiff misstated his prior litigation history on
the complaint form that the Local Rules required him to use. Consistent
with the Eleventh Circuit precedent previously cited, this matter should
Case 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 8 of 10

9
be dismissed without prejudice.4 	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); Wromas v. Barker, No.
3:25CV891-MW/ZCB, 2025 WL 1953112, at *1 (N.D. Fla. July 16, 2025)
(dismissing 	prisoner 	complaint 	without 	prejudice 	“pursuant 	to 	this
Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the local
rules, based on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his prior litigation
history”); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A) (requiring pro se parties to file
civil rights complaints using a Court-approved form); N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
41.1 (allowing the Court to dismiss claims for a party’s failure to comply
with an applicable rule or order).
4 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); see also Rodriguez, 2020 WL 3050231, at
*1 (stating that “dismissal without prejudice is not too severe a sanction”
for failing to accurately disclose litigation history).
Case 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 9 of 10

10
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,
based on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 30th day of January 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 3:25-cv-01881-TKW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 10 of 10