HENSARLING v. DIXON

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
RICHARD EARL HENSARLING, JR.,
Escambia County Inmate # 1800255161,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:26cv1724/TKW/ZCB
RICKY DIXON,
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.1
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
1 Plaintiff filed two other cases the same day he filed the instant suit.
(Case Nos. 3:26cv1719/TKW/HTC & 3:26cv1728/MCR/HTC). 	There are
pending 	Reports 	and 	Recommendations 	in 	both 	of 	those 	cases
recommending dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his
litigation history.
Case 3:26-cv-01724-TKW-ZCB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 9

2
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
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”).2 	Dismissal is appropriate, even if the prisoner claims
2 Many unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases say the same thing.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-01724-TKW-ZCB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 9

3
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
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 11-15). 	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 12). 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 13). 	Plaintiff checked
“Yes” in response to Question B and disclosed one case with defendants
Melton, Phelps, and Barett. (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
Case 3:26-cv-01724-TKW-ZCB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 9

4
federal 	court 	either 	challenging 	your 	conviction 	or 	relating 	to 	the
conditions 	of 	your 	confinement?” 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff 	checked 	“Yes” 	in
response to Question C and disclosed a 2009 Middle District of Florida
case where he sued the Warden of USP Coleman 2. 	(Id. at 13-14).
Plaintiff provided no case numbers for the cases he disclosed.
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 15). Plaintiff, therefore,
certified that—at the time he filed his amended complaint in this case on
March 5, 2026—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 Electronic Records (PACER) system and this Court’s
Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, Plaintiff filed
at least the following undisclosed actions before filing his complaint:
• 	Hensarling v. Moore, et al., No. 6:01cv1393/ACC/DAB (M.D. Fla.)
(styled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus but complaining of the
conditions of his confinement at John E. Polk Correctional Facility)
Case 3:26-cv-01724-TKW-ZCB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 9

5
(dismissed prior to service on December 3, 2001).3
• 	Hensarling 	v. 	Escambia 	County 	Jail 	et 	al., 	No.
3:23cv17921/LC/ZCB (N.D. Fla.) (§ 1983 action alleging “violation
of [Plaintiff’s] constitutional rights 5 thru 15” and complaining
about 	the 	jail’s use 	of electronic 	tablets, 	among other 	things)
(dismissed prior to service on December 21, 2023).4
Because the undisclosed actions were “case[s] in federal court . . .
dismissed . . . as malicious . . . or prior to service[,]” these cases should
have been disclosed in response to Question A of the litigation history
section. 	(Doc. 1 at 12). 	Additionally, because the undisclosed actions
were “lawsuit[s] . . . in state or federal court . . . relating to the conditions
3 Plaintiff in this action identified himself as “Richard E. Hensarling, Jr.”
The Court is confident the Richard Hensarling in that case is the same
Richard Hensarling that filed this case because, in one of the cases
Plaintiff does disclosed, he identifies himself with BOP inmate # 09991-
018. 	(Case No. 5:10cv344, Doc. 1 at 3) (M.D. Fla.). 	The Middle District
of 	Florida 	connected 	Plaintiff’s 	Hensarling 	v. 	Moore, 	et 	al., 	No.
6:01cv1393/ACC/DAB (M.D. Fla.) to a criminal case where Plaintiff is
identified by the same BOP inmate number. 	(See Case No. 6:01cv1393
(M.D. Fla.) (Doc. 1 at 1) (noting 6:01cr111 as related case); Case No.
6:01cr111 (M.D. Fla.) (noting Plaintiff’s BOP inmate number as #09991-
018). Thus, it is apparent that these individuals are the same person.
4 Plaintiff identifies himself in Case No. 3:23cv17921 with the same
Escambia County Jail Inmate #1800255161, which is the same inmate
number he uses to identify himself in this case.
Case 3:26-cv-01724-TKW-ZCB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 5 of 9

6
of [Plaintiff’s] confinement[,]” these cases should have been disclosed in
response to Question C of the litigation history section of Plaintiff’s
complaint. 	(Id. at 13-14). 	But Plaintiff failed to reference these cases
anywhere in his complaint.5
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,
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.
5 	Plaintiff 	also 	filed 	a 	habeas 	petition 	in 	criminal 	case, 	USA 	v.
Hensarling, Case. No. 6:01cr111 (M.D. Fla.) (Doc. 85) that he did not
disclose on his complaint form. 	The habeas petition should have been
disclosed in response to Question C.
Case 3:26-cv-01724-TKW-ZCB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 6 of 9

7
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.”).6
6 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) (“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 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 3:26-cv-01724-TKW-ZCB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 7 of 9

8
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.7 	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. 	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.
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.”).
7 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 3:26-cv-01724-TKW-ZCB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 8 of 9

9
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 16th 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-01724-TKW-ZCB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 Page 9 of 9