OSWALD v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY CORRECTIONS JAIL

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
CORY NOLE OSWALD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:26cv584-MW-HTC
ESCAMBIA COUNTY
CORRECTIONS JAIL OFFICIALS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 22, 2026, Plaintiff Cory Nole Oswald, a detainee proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed an amended civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging constitutional claims against three (3) Defendants at the Escambia
County Jail. After reviewing the amended complaint, the undersigned finds it should
be dismissed because Oswald failed to truthfully disclose his litigation history.1
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.
1 The undersigned also notes that the amended complaint is improper because it does not amend
the allegations in the original complaint. Instead, it is an entirely new action and should have been
filed as a new action, with a separate filing fee. Thus, even if Oswald did not have a disclosure
issue, the amended complaint would nonetheless be subject to dismissal. See Dees v. Powell, 2025
WL 3852935, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2025). To allow a pro se prisoner to assert brand new claims
against brand new defendants “under the guise of an ‘amended complaint’” would “undermine the
purpose” of the Prison Litigation Reform Act as it would allow the plaintiff to avoid paying a
separate filing fee. See id.
Case 3:26-cv-00584-MW-HTC Document 11 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:26cv584-MW-HTC
5.7(A). Section VIII.C of the form required Oswald to disclose his prior litigation
history pertaining to “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.” 	Doc. 5 at 10 (emphasis in original). 	The complaint form warns
plaintiffs that “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. 5 at 8 (emphasis in original). 	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.
Despite signing the amended complaint under “penalty of perjury, that all of
the information … included on or with [the] form, including [his] litigation history,
is true and correct,” (Doc. 5 at 12), Oswald did not truthfully disclose his litigation
history. By checking the box next to “No” in response to Question III.C., Oswald
represented to the Court that he had not filed any prior cases relating to the conditions
of his confinement or to his conviction. 	However, based on an independent
investigation, the undersigned takes judicial notice that Oswald failed to include at
least 	the following three (3) cases filed in the Northern District of Florida
challenging the conditions of his confinement:
(1) Case No. 3:26-cv-315-AW/ZCB (filed January 20);
(2) Case No. 3:26-cv-326-AW/ZCB (filed January 20); and
(3) Case No. 3:26-cv-447-MW/HTC (filed January 23).
Case 3:26-cv-00584-MW-HTC Document 11 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:26cv584-MW-HTC
Each of these cases was filed prior to the amended complaint and should have been
disclosed.
The Court has the inherent power to dismiss a complaint for 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 Oswald’s failure to truthfully disclose his
litigation history is to dismiss this case without prejudice. See Bratton v. Sec’y Dep’t
of Corr., 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 less than dismissal would
signal that a failure to disclose filings is an infraction without consequence.”). “If
Case 3:26-cv-00584-MW-HTC Document 11 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
Case No. 3:26cv584-MW-HTC
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).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Oswald’s
failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	The clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 4 th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) 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.
Case 3:26-cv-00584-MW-HTC Document 11 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 4