GRANTLEY v. JERNIGAN et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
DERRICK GRANTLEY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:26cv1892-AW-HTC
D. JERNIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Derrick Grantley, a prisoner proceeding 	pro se 	and 	in forma
pauperis, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. After
reviewing 	the 	complaint, 	the 	undersigned 	concludes 	this 	case 	should 	be
DISMISSED 	WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE 	because 	Grantley 	failed 	to 	accurately
disclose his litigation history.
Section VIII of the Court’s § 1983 complaint form required Grantley to
disclose his prior litigation history and warned him 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. 1 at 13. 	The form also
advised Grantley that he “should err on the side of caution if [he is] uncertain
whether a case should be identified.” Id.
Case 3:26-cv-01892-MCR-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1892-AW-HTC
Question A on the form asked Grantley to identify any case he filed “in federal
court, including federal appellate court,” that was “dismissed as frivolous, as
malicious, for failure to state a claim, or prior to service.” Doc. 1 at 14. Question C
asked Grantley 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 16.
The undersigned takes judicial notice that Grantley failed to identify the
following cases in response to Question A. 	First, he failed to identify Grantley v.
Sam, 16-10778 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2016), an appeal the appellate court dismissed “as
frivolous.” Second, he failed to identify Grantley v. Baltzell, et al., 3:25-cv-01881-
TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2026), a case which was dismissed prior to service for
failure to accurately disclose his litigation history. 	Although Grantley identified
these cases in response to Question C, they should have also been disclosed in
response to Question A. Indeed, the questions on the form serve several purposes,
including assisting the Court: (1) in gauging a plaintiff’s litigation experience; and
(2) in identifying cases that qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or cases
that are related or duplicative. 	See Jacobs v. Comerford, 2013 WL 6184052 at *4
(N.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2013).
The undersigned also takes judicial notice that Grantley failed to identify
several cases he filed in response to Question C, including but not limited to the
Case 3:26-cv-01892-MCR-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1892-AW-HTC
following civil actions filed in Leon County relating to the conditions of his
confinement or challenging his conviction:
Grantley v. FDOC, 2011 CA 1363 (habeas corpus petition)
Grantley v. FDOC, 2016 CA 1742 (mandamus petition challenging DR conviction)
Grantley v. FDOC, 2018 CA 1160 (mandamus petition seeking return of personal
items at prison)
Despite these omissions, Grantley signed the complaint form under penalty of
perjury that all the information in the complaint form, “including [his] litigation
history, is true and correct.” Doc. 1 at 18. Grantley’s pro se status does not excuse
him from conforming to acceptable standards when interacting with the Court.
Indeed, Grantley should be aware of the importance of truthfully disclosing all his
prior cases, as he has previously had a case dismissed in this District for failing to
accurately disclose his litigation history. 	See N.D. Fla. Case No. 3:15cv493
(§ 1983 case dismissed without prejudice due to Grantley’s failure to disclose two
cases).
Moreover, Grantley’s failure to identify these cases is not excused by his
assertion that he “has listed the aforementioned history of litigation to the best of his
ability” and that “[i]f anything is missing, it was not done intentionally.” Doc. 1 at
15. 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.” 	White v.
Quinn, 	2025 	WL 	2202405, 	at 	*2 	(N.D. 	Fla. 	July 	16, 	2025), 	report 	and
recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 2198610 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2025) (collecting
Case 3:26-cv-01892-MCR-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1892-AW-HTC
cases). Grantley “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.”
Torres v. Geo Grp. Inc., 2021 WL 75764, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2021) (prisoner’s
“claim that he simply ‘forgot’ about the undisclosed prior cases … is not a justifiable
excuse for his failure to list those cases”); see also 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 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.”).
The Court has inherent authority to dismiss a case based on a plaintiff’s failure
to truthfully and fully disclose his litigation history. 	See McNair v. Johnson, 143
F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2025). If the Court cannot rely on the statements or responses
made by the parties, it threatens the quality of justice. The Court will not tolerate
false or incomplete responses or statements in any pleading or motion filed before
it. Thus, if Grantley suffered no penalty for his inaccurate responses, there would
be little or no disincentive for his attempt to evade or undermine the purpose of the
form. See e.g., 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
Case 3:26-cv-01892-MCR-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1892-AW-HTC
federal case that was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); 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.”). 	As one district judge from this District stated in an order of
dismissal for failure to disclose, “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).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice under this Court’s
inherent authority for Grantley’s failure to accurately disclose his litigation history.
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 23 rd day of March, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01892-MCR-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1892-AW-HTC
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-01892-MCR-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 Page 6 of 6