MANS v. STEPHENS et al

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
CORY D. MANS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2304-LC-HTC
A. STEPHENS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Cory Mans, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has
filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 7. After reviewing the
amended complaint, the undersigned concludes this case should be DISMISSED
without prejudice because Mans failed to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
Section VIII of the Court’s § 1983 complaint form required Mans 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. 7 at 8. 	The form also
advised Mans that he “should err on the side of caution if you are uncertain
whether a case should be identified.” Id.
Question C on the form asked Mans to list “any other lawsuit, habeas corpus
petition, or appeal in state or federal court either challenging your conviction or
Case 3:25-cv-02304-LC-HTC Document 13 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:25cv2304-LC-HTC
relating to the conditions of your confinement.”1 Doc. 7 at 10. 	Although Mans
identified a number of cases he has filed in state court, he did not indicate he had
filed any cases in federal court. Doc. 7 at 11-12, 25-26. However, the undersigned
takes judicial notice that Mans filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court in 2017.
See Mans v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., S.D. Fla. Case No. 1:17cv21054.2 Because the
habeas petition challenged Mans’s conviction, he should have disclosed it in
response to Question C. 	Despite this omission, Mans signed the complaint form
under penalty of perjury, that all the information on the complaint form, “including
[his] litigation history, is true and correct.” Doc. 7 at 12-13.
Mans’s pro se status does not excuse him from conforming to acceptable
standards when interacting with the Court. 	The Court has inherent authority to
dismiss a case based on a plaintiff’s failure to truthfully 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 responses or statements in any pleading or
motion filed before it. Thus, if Mans suffered no penalty for his untruthful response,
there would be little or no disincentive for his attempt to evade or undermine the
1 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) and cases that are related or duplicative. See Jacobs v. Comerford, 2013 WL 6184052
at *4 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2013).
2 The habeas case bears Mans’s Florida Department of Corrections inmate number (M58461),
which confirms he filed it.
Case 3:25-cv-02304-LC-HTC Document 13 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:25cv2304-LC-HTC
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 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.”). 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 Mans’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 29 th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02304-LC-HTC Document 13 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
Case No. 3:25cv2304-LC-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 3:25-cv-02304-LC-HTC Document 13 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 4