FRAZIER v. PANAMA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Page 1 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JAMIE L. FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-138-MCR-MJF
PANAMA CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss this
case without prejudice because Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by
failing to disclose fully and accurately his litigation history.
B ACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Florida prisoner housed at the Liberty Correctional
Institution. Plaintiff’s Florida Department of Corrections inmate number
is D43540.
Plaintiff initiated this civil action on June 9, 2025, by filing a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s second amended
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 17

Page 2 of 17
complaint names three Defendants: the Panama City Police Department,
Chief Mark Smith, and Detective Kenneth Baker. Doc. 16. Plaintiff’s
claims arise from Plaintiff’s arrest and the search of his home on January
27, 2023. Plaintiff is asserting the following claims: “illegal search and
seizure, perjury (lying to judge to get warrant), false imprisonment,
discrimination + equal protection of law”, “slander” and “defamation.” Id.
at 7, 14. Plaintiff is seeking $2 million in damages.
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Screening of Plaintiff’s Second 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
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 17

Page 3 of 17
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:
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 the inmate 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
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 17

Page 4 of 17
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”:
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.
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 4 of 17

Page 5 of 17
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. 16 at 9–12. The complaint form asks three questions:
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 “Yes” to question VIII(A) of the complaint form,
and disclosed one federal case. Doc. 16 at 9. Plaintiff did not identify the
case number but described the case as dated “Jan. 2014” and filed in
“Federal 	Court 	in 	Ga.” 	Id. 	at 	9. 	Plaintiff 	described 	the 	reason 	for
dismissal as: “I waited to[o] late to file complaint.” Id.
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 5 of 17

Page 6 of 17
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the court takes judicial
notice that on March 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a civil-rights case in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia relating
to a traffic stop that occurred in January 2015. See Frazier v. Norton, No.
4:17-cv-00072 (M.D. Ga.). That case was dismissed summarily for failure
to state a claim on which relief can be granted, because Plaintiff’s Fourth
Amendment 	claims 	were 	barred 	by 	the 	statute 	of 	limitations 	and
Plaintiff’s due-process claims failed to state a constitutional violation. See
Frazier v. Norton, 2017 WL 6597924 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2017), report and
recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 6596597 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2017).1
1 The district court described the events underlying that lawsuit as
follows:
Plaintiff asserts that on January 27, 2015, he was pulled
over by an officer with the Columbus Police Department for
performing an illegal u-turn. Compl. 4. Thereafter, the officer
ran Plaintiff's driver’s license and discovered that Plaintiff
had an active warrant for a probation violation in Florida.
Defendant Officer Nathan Norton then searched Plaintiff,
finding $10,204.36 in Plaintiff’s pocket. Plaintiff’s money was
taken and he was issued a “currency form.” Plaintiff’s money
was not subsequently returned to him. Instead, he was told
that 	the 	money 	was 	used 	to 	buy 	police 	equipment. 	Id.
Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Chief of Police
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 6 of 17

Page 7 of 17
The foregoing case was filed by Plaintiff when he was an inmate confined
in the Texas Department of Corrections. See 2017 WL 6597924, at *1.
Plaintiff identified his Texas Department of Corrections inmate number
as 2077690. See Case No. 4:17-cv-00072, Doc. 1 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2017).
Plaintiff’s subsequent filings in that case also disclosed Plaintiff’s Florida
Department of Corrections inmate number D43540. See Case No. 4:17-
cv-00072, Docs. 10-3, 10-4 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2017).
Giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the undersigned presumes
that Plaintiff’s response to Question VIII(A) disclosed Case No. 4:17-cv-
00072 (M.D. Ga.). 	Plaintiff disclosed no other cases in response to
Question VIII(A). Doc. 16 at 9.
Plaintiff also responded “Yes” to Question VIII(C) of the complaint
form, and disclosed one state-court case, namely, Plaintiff’s direct appeal
in his underlying criminal case (Bay County Circuit Court Case No. 2023-
CF-2845). See Doc. 16 at 11. Plaintiff disclosed no other cases.
Ricky Boren knew that Plaintiff’s money was wrongfully held,
but allowed the money to be spent anyway. Compl. 3.
Frazier, 2017 WL 6597924, at *2.
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 7 of 17

Page 8 of 17
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.” Doc. 16 at 12–13. Thus, Plaintiff
has in effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, he had not filed
any other case in federal court that was dismissed as frivolous, as
malicious, for failure to state a claim, or prior to service.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Omission
The undersigned takes judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff
filed his complaint in this case on June 9, 2025, Plaintiff had filed at least
one other federal case that was required to be disclosed on the form. On
December 6, 2005, Plaintiff, while detained in a county jail in Georgia,
filed a civil-rights case in the Middle District of Georgia concerning an
arrest in 2004 for driving a stolen automobile. See Frazier v. Bibb Cnty.
Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 5:05-cv-00446, Doc. 1 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 6, 2005). That
case was dismissed as frivolous. See No. 5:05-cv-00446, Doc. 4 (M.D. Ga.
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 8 of 17

Page 9 of 17
Dec. 	22, 	2005).2 	The 	docket 	in 	that 	case 	reflects 	Plaintiff’s 	Texas
Department of Corrections inmate number 2077690.
The 2005 Georgia case was responsive to Question VIII(A) of the
complaint form, because it is a case Plaintiff filed in federal court that
was dismissed as frivolous. By failing to disclose at least one of his prior
cases, 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 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
2 The district court described Plaintiff’s allegations in that case as follows:
Plaintiff 	alleges 	that 	on 	January 	1, 	2004, 	he 	was
arrested in Macon, Georgia, during a routine traffic stop after
sheriff’s deputies learned that plaintiff was driving a stolen
automobile. Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Bibb County
Jail, where he remained for six months. Plaintiff alleges that
the charges against him were then dropped and that he was
subsequently arrested in Bay County, Florida, for theft of the
same automobile.
Frazier, No. 5:05-cv-00446, Doc. 4 at 2 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 22, 2005).
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 9 of 17

Page 10 of 17
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
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.
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 10 of 17

Page 11 of 17
“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”).
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
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 11 of 17

Page 12 of 17
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 were dismissed as frivolous. See Doc. 16 at 9. Plaintiff
also knew that the penalty for failing to disclose his federal litigation
history was dismissal. Id. at 8; see also 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 question on the complaint form, including the questions
regarding 	Plaintiff’s 	prior 	litigation, 	both 	honestly 	and
completely.” Doc. 10 at 2. The undersigned also warned Plaintiff that
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 12 of 17

Page 13 of 17
“[f]ailure to disclose all prior federal litigation likely will result
in 	dismissal 	of 	this 	civil 	action 	as 	an 	abuse 	of 	the 	judicial
process.” Id. at 2 n.1.
There is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to respond truthfully to
Question VIII(A) on the complaint form. The question is 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).
The District Court 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 judicial
system’s time and resources.”). If Plaintiff suffered no penalty for his
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 13 of 17

Page 14 of 17
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
id. at n.4 (“[A] dismissal 	without prejudice doesn’t depend on a finding
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 14 of 17

Page 15 of 17
of bad faith, and can follow from unintentional or merely negligent
conduct.”).
Because Plaintiff alleges that the incidents giving rise to his claims
began on January 27, 2023, 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 an opportunity to amend his
complaint to disclose the previous lawsuits 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) (district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying leave to amend the complaint so that the plaintiff could disclose
lawsuits that should have been disclosed initially); Harris v. Warden, 498
F. App’x 962, 964–65 (11th Cir. 2012) (rejecting prisoner’s argument that
it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss case without allowing him “to
correct” his omissions by disclosing his litigation history; record showed
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 15 of 17

Page 16 of 17
that 	prisoner 	“affirmatively 	misrepresented 	the 	facts” 	by 	failing 	to
disclose prior cases and that he “knew, or from reading the Complaint
form should have known, that disclosure of the relevant prior actions was
required”); Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006)
(“[T]he district court was correct to conclude that to allow [the plaintiff]
to then acknowledge what he should have disclosed earlier would serve
to overlook his abuse of the judicial process.”).
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
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 Panama City, Florida, this 30th day of October, 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 16 of 17

Page 17 of 17
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 5:25-cv-00138-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 10/30/25 Page 17 of 17