LEWIS v. BLACKWATER RIVER CORRECTIONAL REHABILITATION FACILITY CORP et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SAMUEL JEROME LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2084-LC-HTC
BLACKWATER RIVER
CORRECTIONAL REHABILITATION
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Samuel Jerome Lewis, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims about conditions of
confinement and deliberate indifference to medical needs. 	Doc. 1. 	Upon review,
the undersigned finds the case should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
because Lewis failed to truthfully disclose his litigation history on the complaint
form.
This Court’s Local Rules require prisoners and pro se litigants to use the
Court’s complaint form when filing a civil rights complaint. 	See N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
5.7(A). Section VIII of the Court’s approved complaint form requires plaintiffs to
Case 3:25-cv-02084-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
Case No. 3:25cv2084-LC-HTC
disclose their prior litigation history.1 The complaint form warns plaintiffs 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 14. Moreover, the complaint form advises plaintiffs to “err on the side of
caution” if they are uncertain about whether a case should be identified. Id.
Question VIII.A asks Lewis to identify “any case in federal court, including
federal appellate court” that was “dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, for failure to
state a claim, or prior to service?” 	Id. at 15. Lewis identifies one case in response
to Question VIII.A: 2:24-cv-816-SPC-KCD, filed in the Middle District of Florida.
Based upon an independent review, the undersigned takes judicial notice that
while 	in 	pretrial 	custody 	(for 	charges 	that 	ultimately 	lead 	to 	his 	current
incarceration), Lewis also filed a case in the Middle District of Florida against the
Public Defender’s Office, the State Attorney, the Florida Attorney General, and the
Florida Governor, complaining about a data breach that occurred at the Public
Defender’s Office. See Lewis v. Smith et al., 2:22-cv-00127-JLB-MRM, Docs. 8, 9
1 The questions in this section serve several purposes, including assisting the Court in identifying
cases that qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), cases that are related or duplicative, and in
gauging a plaintiff’s litigation experience. 	See Jacobs v. Comerford, 2013 WL 6184052 at * 4
(N.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2013).
Case 3:25-cv-02084-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Case No. 3:25cv2084-LC-HTC
(M.D. Fla. July 5, 2022). Lewis did not disclose this case in response to Question
VIII.A, even though it was dismissed prior to service for lack of standing.2 See id.
The Court has the inherent power to dismiss based on a failure to disclose
even a single case. 	See McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2025)
(recognizing court’s inherent authority to dismiss an action for failure to truthfully
disclose litigation history when requested to do so on complaint form). It also has
the inherent power to dismiss based on a failure to comply with orders of the Court,
this Court’s local rules, or for abusing the judicial process. Id. at 1308; see also N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (“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.”).
Thus, an appropriate sanction for Lewis’s failure to provide the Court with
true factual responses is to dismiss this case without prejudice. See Bratton v. Sec’y
2 It appears Lewis also failed to identify cases he filed in the District of South Carolina and Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals relating to his convictions and confinement for criminal matters arising
in that District in response to Question VIII.C, which asks Lewis to identify “any other lawsuit,
habeas corpus petition, or appeal in state or federal court challenging [his] conviction or relating
to the conditions of [his] confinement.” See United States v. Lewis, 2008-cr-4303 (4th Cir. 2008)
(relating to an appeal of a conviction in United States v. Lewis, 8:07-cr-954-DCC (D.S.C. Mar. 5,
2008)). The undersigned confirmed the defendant in 8:07-cr-954-DCC is the same as the plaintiff
here because in prosecuting Lewis for the charges for which he is currently serving a sentence, the
State Attorney’s Office sent a letter to the District of South Carolina requesting certified copies of
the indictment and final judgment for use in the State of Florida’s prosecution of Lewis. See Doc.
96, 8:07-cr-954-DCC. The defendant in 8:07-cr-954-DCC also has the same date of birth as Lewis.
And Lewis’s pretrial release in South Carolina was transferred to the Middle District of Florida,
which explains his presence in Florida. See id. at Doc. 94.
Case 3:25-cv-02084-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
Case No. 3:25cv2084-LC-HTC
DOC, 2012 WL 2913171, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2012) (dismissing case without
prejudice when prisoner failed to disclose one prior federal case that was dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Johnson v. Crawson, No. 5:08cv300/RS/EMT, 2010
WL 1380247, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2010) (same); 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.”). “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). Because this is a dismissal
without prejudice, Lewis may initiate a new suit on these claims, provided he does
so within the statute of limitations period.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under this Court’s
inherent power for Lewis’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	The clerk be directed to close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 12 th day of November, 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02084-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
Case No. 3:25cv2084-LC-HTC
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 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; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-02084-LC-HTC Document 5 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 5