BYRD v. KERCE et al

Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
VENIKO MARQUEL BYRD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-362-TKW-MJF
WOODROW KERCE and
STEVEN OUTLAW,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose fully
and accurately his litigation history, the District Court should dismiss
this case without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Florida pre-trial detainee housed at Leon County
Detention Facility. Plaintiff’s inmate number is 103505.
Plaintiff initiated this civil action on August 16, 2025, by filing a
handwritten complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1 at 8. Because the
complaint did not comply with the Local Rules, the undersigned ordered
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 15

Page 2 of 15
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the court-approved form. Doc.
7 at 2. The undersigned explained that the complaint form—including
questions about Plaintiff’s litigation history—must be completed in its
entirety. Id. at 1. The undersigned warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to
disclose prior litigation likely will result in dismissal of this civil action.”
Id.
Plaintiff’s 	first 	amended 	complaint 	names 	as 	Defendants 	two
Tallahassee Police Department officers: Steven Outlaw and Woodrow
Kerce. Doc. 8. Plaintiff’s claims arise from two, separate incidents. First,
Plaintiff claims on July 14, 2023, Kerce entered Plaintiff’s hotel room
without an arrest or search warrant and arrested Plaintiff. Second,
Plaintiff claims that approximately two years later, on April 26, 2025,
Outlaw conducted an “illegal” traffic stop of a vehicle in which Plaintiff
was a passenger and “unlawfully arrested” Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks
immediate release from custody and damages.1
1 The District Court also could dismiss this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), because Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for
relief. First, Plaintiff sues Defendants only in their official capacities. Doc. 8 at 2–3.
Plaintiff, however, fails to allege any facts that suggest that the constitutional
violations are a result of a Tallahassee Police Department custom or policy. Thus, he
has failed to state a plausible official-capacity claim. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs.,
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 15

Page 3 of 15
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Screening of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
“Although a pro se litigant’s filings are construed liberally, they
must comply with procedural rules.” McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301,
1307 (11th Cir. 2025) (citations omitted). “A district court has discretion
to adopt local rules that are necessary to carry out the conduct of its
business.” Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 645 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. §
2071; Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a). “[L]ocal rules generally reflect the courts’
traditional ‘authority to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d
1253, 1267–68 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc. v.
Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 172–73 (1989)).
Rule 5.7(A) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court of
the Northern District of Florida instructs a pro se prisoner bringing suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to use the court’s standardized civil-rights
complaint form:
436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Second, Plaintiff requests relief—release from pre-trial
detention—which the District Court cannot provide in this action. Hale v. Sec’y for
Dep’t of Corr., 345 F. App’x 489, 492 (11th Cir. 2009).
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 15

Page 4 of 15
A party not represented by an attorney must file any of
these only on a form available without charge from the Clerk
or on the District’s website: a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or a
complaint in a civil-rights case. A case is a civil-rights case if
it asserts a claim under the United States Constitution or a
statute creating individual rights, including, for example, 42
U.S.C. § 1983 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court need
not—and ordinarily will not—consider a petition, motion, or
complaint that is not filed on the proper form.
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A).
The complaint form, in turn, instructs a plaintiff to disclose his
litigation 	history. 	In 	particular, 	under 	a 	heading 	titled 	“PRIOR
LITIGATION,” the form provides the following directive:
This section requires you to identify your prior
litigation history. Be advised 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. You should err on
the side of caution if you are uncertain whether a case
should be identified.
Compl. Form at 8. The form goes on to state that the inmate should
“[a]ttach additional pages as necessary to list all cases.” Id. at 12.
Separately, 	the 	form 	requires 	the 	inmate 	to 	provide 	the 	following
“CERTIFICATION”:
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 15

Page 5 of 15
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.
Local Rule 41.1 describes the consequences of a litigant’s failure to
comply with the applicable court rules, and it expressly warns that
dismissal is a possible sanction:
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.
N.D. Fla. R. 41.1.
In short, Plaintiff is required to complete the standardized civil-
rights 	complaint 	form 	and 	to 	complete 	the 	form 	according 	to 	its
instructions.
B. 	Plaintiff’s Responses to Questions on the Complaint Form
Plaintiff 	provided 	answers 	to 	Section 	VIII 	of 	the 	civil 	rights
complaint form which requires Plaintiff to disclose his litigation history.
Doc. 8 at 9–12. The complaint form asks three questions:
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 15

Page 6 of 15
A. Have you 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?
B. Have you filed other lawsuits or appeals in 	state 	or
federal court dealing with the same facts or issue involved
in this case?
C. Have you 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 9–10. Additionally, the complaint form instructs that if the answer
is “yes” to any of these questions, then the plaintiff must disclose all
responsive cases. Id.
Plaintiff responded, “No” to Questions A and B. Id. He did not
disclose any cases. Id. Plaintiff responded, “Yes” to Question A and
disclosed only one appeal filed in the Florida First District Court of
Appeal. Id. at 11. At the end of the civil rights complaint form, Plaintiff
signed his name after certifying: “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 12–13. Thus,
Plaintiff has in effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, he
never filed any other case in federal court.
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 6 of 15

Page 7 of 15
C. 	Plaintiff’s Omission
The undersigned takes judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff
filed his complaint in this case on August 16, 2025, Plaintiff had filed at
least one other federal case that Plaintiff was required to disclose.
On July 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed a civil-rights case in the Northern
District of Florida against Leon County and the Tallahassee Police
Department 	concerning 	Kerce’s 	and 	Outlaw’s 	purportedly
unconstitutional conduct. See Byrd v. Leon County, No. 4:25-cv-336-MW-
MJF, Doc. 1 (N.D. Fla. July 31, 2025). That case was dismissed prior to
service without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a “new lawsuit that complies
with the Local Rules.” 	See 	id., Doc. 3 (N.D. Fla. August 19, 2025)
(emphasis added). The docket in that case reflects that Plaintiff’s inmate
number is 103505.
This case was responsive to Question B on the complaint form
because it is a case Plaintiff filed in federal court that dealt with the same
facts and issue involved in this case. By failing to disclose this prior case,
Plaintiff violated the complaint form’s explicit instructions and Plaintiff’s
duty of candor to the District Court. See Kendrick v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 7 of 15

Page 8 of 15
Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022)
(noting that pro se litigants “owe the same duty of candor to the court as
imposed on any other litigant”).
D. 	The Materiality of Plaintiff’s Omissions
Courts have recognized that information regarding a plaintiff’s
litigation history is useful to federal courts:
[I]t 	allows 	efficient 	consideration 	of 	whether 	the
prisoner is entitled to pursue the current action under the
“three strikes” provision of the [PLRA]; it allows consideration
of whether the action is related to, or otherwise should be
considered in conjunction with or by the same judge who
presided 	over, 	another 	action; 	it 	allows 	consideration 	of
whether any ruling in the other action affects the prisoner’s
current case. All of these things are appropriately considered
in connection with the preliminary review of such a complaint
under the [PLRA].
Spires v. Taylor, No. 3:00-cv-249-RH, Order of Dismissal, Doc. 10 (N.D.
Fla. 	Oct. 	27, 	2000). 	Also, 	this 	“information 	may 	assist 	a 	court 	in
identifying suits that are repetitious of prior or pending lawsuits and
hence frivolous.” In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 969 (2d Cir. 1989); see Bilal v.
Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that, in assessing
frivolousness, 	courts 	may 	consider 	“a 	litigant’s 	history 	of 	bringing
unmeritorious 	litigation”). 	Additionally, 	because 	prisoner-plaintiffs
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 8 of 15

Page 9 of 15
generally proceed pro se, information regarding a plaintiff’s litigation
history assists district courts in determining the plaintiff’s experience
and familiarity with the legal terrain.
“Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional
obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their
ability to carry out Article III functions.” Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d
1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d
1254, 1261–62 (2d Cir. 1984). Courts also have “a responsibility to
prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the judicial
machinery needed by others.” 	Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074. Requiring
prisoner-plaintiffs to divulge their record of litigation serves all these
compelling interests. Thus, to conserve judicial resources and effectively
manage their dockets, courts may require prisoner-plaintiffs to disclose
their litigation history. See Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d
1253, 	1262 	(11th 	Cir. 	2014) 	(noting 	that 	district 	courts 	have
“unquestionable authority to control their own dockets; this authority
includes broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before
them”).
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 9 of 15

Page 10 of 15
The time that district courts are required to expend to verify the
cases a plaintiff has filed but failed to identify can be considerable. This
is especially true in this case where a plaintiff has filed cases in other
jurisdictions and under additional inmate numbers. When courts cannot
rely on the statements or responses made by parties, the quality of justice
is threatened. Courts, therefore, cannot tolerate false or misleading
responses in pleadings or motions.
Here, as detailed above, Plaintiff falsely responded to a question on
the complaint form and violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose his
full litigation history as required by the complaint form. Plaintiff knew
from reading the complaint form that he was required to disclose all prior
federal cases that dealt with the same facts or issues involved in this
case. See Doc. 8 at 8, 10. Plaintiff also knew that the penalty for failing
to disclose his federal litigation history was dismissal. Id. at 8; N.D. Fla.
Loc. R. 41.1 (warning that the failure to follow an applicable rule is a
ground for “dismiss[al] [of] a claim.”).
In addition to the warnings on the complaint form, the undersigned
explicitly warned Plaintiff, by separate order, that he “must answer each
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 10 of 15

Page 11 of 15
question 	on 	the 	complaint 	form, 	including 	the 	questions 	regarding
Plaintiff’s prior litigation, both honestly and completely.” Doc. 7 at 1. The
undersigned also warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to disclose all prior
federal litigation likely will result in dismissal of this civil action.” Id.
There is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to respond truthfully to the
questions on the complaint form. The questions are straightforward and
easily understandable. See Kendrick, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (noting
that the questions on the court-form are not complicated and a plaintiff’s
pro se 	status was not an excuse for failing to honestly answer the
straightforward questions). Plaintiff is in a superior position to know
whether he filed cases and if so, in which courts he had filed those cases.
Indeed, any claim that Plaintiff simply could not remember his prior case
would strain credulity. Plaintiff filed the instant case a mere two weeks
after he commenced his first case, and in each case filed in this district,
the 	clerk 	of 	the 	court 	sends 	a 	“Notice 	to 	Pro 	Se” 	litigants, 	which
specifically 	advises 	that 	the 	plaintiff 	“should 	keep 	one 	copy 	of 	all
documents you file or receive in this case for your personal records.” Doc.
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 11 of 15

Page 12 of 15
2 ¶ 4; see Byd v. Leon County, No. 4:25-cv-336-MW-MJF, Doc. 2 (N.D. Fla.
sent to Plaintiff on August 13, 2025).
Thus, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to ensure that he has a list of
his litigation history. Washington v. Dyas, 5:22-CV-285-TKW-MJF, 2023
WL 359508, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2023). If he did not have the
information, he could (and should) have requested it from the appropriate
clerks’ offices before filing a new case. Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) (By
signing and presenting a pleading to the court, an “unrepresented party
certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and
belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the
factual contention have evidentiary support.”) (emphasis added).
The District Court, therefore, should not allow Plaintiff’s false
response to go unpunished. A penalty is warranted both to deter Plaintiff
from such conduct and to deter others from similar misrepresentations
and omissions. See 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. It would
invite other prisoners to omit their litigation history, thus draining the
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 12 of 15

Page 13 of 15
judicial system’s time and resources.”). If Plaintiff suffered no penalty for
his untruthful response, there would be little or no disincentive for
Plaintiff’s attempt to evade or undermine the purpose of the form.
E. 	The Appropriate Sanction Is Dismissal Without Prejudice
When a complaint form requires a plaintiff to list his litigation
history, and the plaintiff’s statements are made under penalty of perjury,
a 	plaintiff’s 	affirmative 	misrepresentation 	regarding 	his 	litigation
history warrants dismissal of the case under the district court’s inherent
authority 	to 	manage 	its 	docket 	and 	enforce 	applicable 	local 	rules.
McNair, 	143 	F. 	4th 	at 	1308 	(“Dismissal 	without 	prejudice 	was 	an
appropriate exercise of the district court’s inherent authority to manage
its docket and enforce the local rules. [Plaintiff] violated the local rules
by failing to disclose his full litigation history, as required by the duly
adopted standard complaint form.”); see also Sears v. Haas, 509 F. App’x
935, 936 (11th Cir. 2013).
An appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s violation of the Local Rules
by failing to comply with the complaint form’s explicit instructions is to
dismiss this case without prejudice. McNair, 143 F.4th at 1308; see also
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 13 of 15

Page 14 of 15
id. at n.4 (“[A] dismissal without prejudice doesn’t depend on a finding of
bad 	faith, 	and 	can 	follow 	from 	unintentional 	or 	merely 	negligent
conduct.”).
Because Plaintiff alleges that the incidents giving rise to his claims
occurred on July 14, 2023, and April 26, 2025, respectively, Florida’s four-
year statute of limitations likely would not 	preclude 	Plaintiff from
refiling this action. Shelton v. Rohrs, 406 F. App’x 340, 341 (11th Cir.
2010).
F. 	No lesser Sanction Would Suffice
A sanction less than dismissal would not suffice to deter Plaintiff’s
conduct. For example, providing Plaintiff yet another opportunity to
amend his complaint to disclose the previous lawsuit would equate to
overlooking his abuse of the judicial process, because that course of action
would entail no penalty. See Young v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 380 F. App’x
939, 940–41 (11th Cir. 2010).
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 14 of 15

Page 15 of 15
1. 	DISMISS this case without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure
to comply with the Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 10th day of December, 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). 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. A party must serve a copy of any
objections on all other parties. A party who fails to
object to this 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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties also are
advised 	that 	if 	they 	dispute 	the 	accuracy 	of 	any
judicially-noticed fact, or if they otherwise wish to be
heard on the propriety of the District Court taking
judicial notice of that fact, they must raise this issue in
an objection to this report and recommendation.
Case 4:25-cv-00362-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 Page 15 of 15