WILSON v. DANIELS et al

Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
BERNARD D. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-240-MCR/MJF
SGT. DANIELS, et al.,
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 inmate currently confined at the Santa Rosa
Correctional Institution. Plaintiff’s inmate number is T24935.
On August 26, 2026, Plaintiff initiated this civil action against
three employees of the Florida Department of Corrections. Doc. 1 at 18.
On October 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Doc. 6 at 13.
Plaintiff 	alleges 	that 	on 	June 	24, 	2024, 	while 	housed 	at 	Jackson
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 15

Page 2 of 15
Correctional Institution, Defendnats sprayed Plaintiff with chemical
agents Plaintiff because Plaintiff had filed a lawsuit in federal court
against Florida Department of Correction employees. Id. at 5. Plaintiff
asserts 	Defendants 	violated 	his 	First, 	Eighth, 	and 	Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Id. at 11.
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)).
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 15

Page 3 of 15
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
the side of caution if you are uncertain whether a case
should be identified.
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 15

Page 4 of 15
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-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 15

Page 5 of 15
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. 6 at 9–12; Doc. 1 at 14–16. 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?
Doc. 6 at 13–14. 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 Question B and “Yes” to Questions A
and C. Id.; Doc. 1 at 14–15. 	In response to Questions A and C, Plaintiff
disclosed that he had filed six federal cases. Doc. 6 at 9, 11; Doc. 1 at 14,
16.
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 5 of 15

Page 6 of 15
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. 6 at 12–13; Doc. 1 at 17–18.
Thus, Plaintiff has in effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit,
he never filed any appeal in State court challenging his underlying
conviction.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Omissions
The undersigned takes judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff
filed his complaint, Plaintiff had filed at least two appeals that Plaintiff
was required to disclose.
On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Second District
Court of Appeal challenging his conviction in Hillsborough County Case
No. 16-CF-22103. Wilson v. State of Florida, No. 2D23-1120, 375 So. 265
(Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2023). On November 22, 2023, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the conviction. Id.
Additionally, on October 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed an appeal to the
Second 	District 	Court 	of 	Appeal 	challenging 	his 	conviction 	in
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 6 of 15

Page 7 of 15
Hillsborough County Case No. 16-CF-22103. Wilson v. State of Florida,
No. 2D2018-4244, 273 So.3d 974 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App.). 	On May 29,
2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Id.
These appeals were responsive to Question C on the complaint form
because they were appeals that challenged Plaintiff’s conviction. By
failing to disclose these prior appeals and others, 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
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
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 7 of 15

Page 8 of 15
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.
“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
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 8 of 15

Page 9 of 15
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
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
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 9 of 15

Page 10 of 15
from reading the complaint form that he was required to disclose all
appeals that challenged his conviction. See Doc. 6 at 8, 10, 12; Doc. 1 at
13, 15, 17. Plaintiff also knew that the penalty for failing to disclose his
federal litigation history was dismissal. Doc. 6 at 12; Doc. 1 at 13; 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.”).
There is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to respond truthfully to the
questions on the complaint form. Plaintiff admits he is an experienced
pro 	se 	litigator. 	These 	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 or appeals, and if so, in which courts he had filed
those cases and appeals. Furthermore, it is “inconceivable that he would
forget that he appealed his underlying conviction.” McReynolds v. Lyles,
No. 1:23-CV-212-AW-MJF, 2026 WL 267456, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 2,
2026). Nonetheless, if he did not have the information, he could (and
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 10 of 15

Page 11 of 15
should) have requested it from the appropriate clerks’ offices before filing
a new case. 	Washington v. Dyas, 5:22-CV-285-TKW-MJF, 2023 WL
359508, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2023).; 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).
Alternatively, he could have included a disclaimer that he could not recall
his case. But he did not. Instead, he made a false representation to this
court that he had never filed any appeal in State court challenging his
underlying conviction.
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 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 11 of 15

Page 12 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 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 12 of 15

Page 13 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 June 2024, 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 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
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 13 of 15

Page 14 of 15
correct” his omissions by disclosing his litigation history; record showed
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 Pensacola, Florida, this 6th day of March 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 14 of 15

Page 15 of 15
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-00240-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 15 of 15