ESTRADA v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
ALBERT ESTRADA,
FDOC # C03750,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2458/AW/ZCB
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, 	a 	prisoner of the 	Florida 	Department 	of Corrections
(FDOC) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an amended
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(Doc. 13). 	Having
reviewed 	the 	complaint, 	the 	Court 	believes 	dismissal 	is 	warranted
because 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	accurately 	disclosed 	his 	litigation 	history
despite being required to do so.
The Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida require pro se
prisoners in civil rights cases to file such cases using the Court-approved
complaint form. 	See 	N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A). 	The complaint form
requires the disclosure of a prisoner’s litigation history. 	The form must
be signed under penalty of perjury. 	The Eleventh Circuit has held that
Case 3:25-cv-02458-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 9

2
a prisoner’s case may be dismissed without prejudice for failing to
accurately disclose litigation history on the complaint form. 	See McNair
v. 	Johnson, 	143 	F.4th 	1301, 	1307-08 	(11th 	Cir. 	2025) 	(affirming
“[d]ismissal without prejudice [as] an appropriate exercise of the district
court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the local
rules” where the plaintiff “violated the local rules by failing to disclose
his full litigation history, as required by the duly adopted standard
complaint form”).1 	Dismissal is appropriate, even if the prisoner claims
that a misunderstanding caused his failure to accurately disclose his
litigation history. See Redmon v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 414 F. App’x
1 Many unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases say the same thing. See, e.g.,
Allen v. Santiago, No. 22-11946, 2023 WL 5745494, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept.
6, 2023) (affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case because he failed to
disclose all of his relevant prior litigation); Kendrick v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t
of Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022)
(stating 	that 	“[a] 	plaintiff’s 	bad-faith 	litigiousness 	or 	manipulative
tactics, 	which 	include 	lying 	about 	one’s 	litigation 	history, 	warrant
dismissal”); Jones v. Szalai, 778 F. App’x 847, 848 (11th Cir. 2019)
(affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case as an appropriate sanction
for plaintiff’s failing to disclose a prior case on the complaint form);
Strickland v. United States, 739 F. App’x 587, 588 (11th Cir. 2018)
(affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case because he misrepresented
the number of cases he had previously filed in the district court); Wynn
v. Postal Serv., 735 F. App’x 704, 705 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal
of pro se plaintiff’s case after he failed to disclose a habeas action because
the habeas action fell “squarely within the complaint form’s disclosure
requirements”).
Case 3:25-cv-02458-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 9

3
221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal for failure to disclose
litigation history and concluding that prisoner’s failure was not excused
by his claimed misunderstanding of the form).
Here, the complaint form required Plaintiff to disclose information
regarding prior civil cases he had filed in state and federal courts. (Doc.
13 at 13-19). Question A of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if
he “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?” (Id. at 14). Plaintiff checked “No” in response to Question A
and disclosed no cases. (Id.).
Question B of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if he had
“filed other lawsuits or appeals in state or federal court dealing with the
same facts or issue involved in this case?” 	(Id. at 15). 	Plaintiff checked
“No” in response to Question B and disclosed no cases. (Id.).
Question C of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if he had
“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 15). 	Plaintiff checked “No” in
response to Question C and disclosed no cases. (Id. at 15-17).
Case 3:25-cv-02458-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 9

4
At the end of the complaint form, Plaintiff signed his name after
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.” 	(Doc. 13 at 17, 19). 	Plaintiff,
therefore, certified that—at the time he filed his amended complaint in
this case on January 28, 2026—he had fully disclosed his litigation
history.
The 	Court 	has 	researched 	Plaintiff’s 	litigation 	history 	and
discovered that he failed to accurately disclose it. According to the Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system and this Court’s
Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, Plaintiff filed
at least the following undisclosed actions before filing his amended
complaint:
• 	Estrada v. Henry, et al., No. 3:13-cv-47/MCR/CJK (N.D. Fla.) (§
1983 	action 	alleging 	constitutional 	violations 	based 	on 	the
deprivation of property by prison officials) (dismissed as malicious
and prior to service on December 24, 2013).2
2 	Plaintiff 	in 	the 	undisclosed 	actions 	identified 	himself 	as 	“Albert
Estrada” with FDOC inmate number “C03750.” 	Plaintiff here similarly
identifies himself. 	(Doc. 13 at 3). 	Thus, it is apparent that these
individuals are the same person.
Case 3:25-cv-02458-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 9

5
• 	Estrada v. Jones, et al., No. 5:18-cv-78/MCR/EMT (§ 1983 action
alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
prison officials) (dismissed as malicious and prior to service on
February 8, 2019).3
Because the undisclosed actions were “lawsuit[s] . . . in state or federal
court . . . relating to the conditions of [Plaintiff’s] confinement[,]” these
cases should have been disclosed in response to Question C of the
litigation history section of Plaintiff’s complaint. 	(Doc. 13 at 15-17).
3 Plaintiff also appears to have filed numerous other civil rights actions
and habeas petitions in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida that
should have been disclosed in response to the litigation history section of
the complaint form. 	See, e.g., Estrada, et al., v. Florida Department of
Corrections, No. 1:18-cv-22765/MGC (S.D. Fla.) (§ 1983 action dismissed
prior to service under Hubbard v. Haley on January 4, 2019); Estrada v.
Secretary, FDOC, No. 2:11-cv-14230/KMM (S.D. Fla.) (§ 2254 habeas
petition 	dismissed 	March 	1, 	2012); 	Doc. 	48 	at 	3-5, 	No. 	3:13-cv-
47/MCR/CJK (N.D. Fla.) (identifying various § 1983 actions filed by
Plaintiff in the Middle District of Florida). 	The Court need not spend
significant time listing every case Plaintiff improperly failed to disclose,
as even one omission is sufficient to justify a dismissal without prejudice.
See Jones, 778 F. App’x at 848 (“[T]he district court did not abuse its
discretion by dismissing Jones’s complaint without prejudice . . . because
it was an appropriate sanction for his omission from the complaint form
of a case he previously filed.”); Redmon, 414 F. App’x at 226 (affirming
dismissal without prejudice where “Plaintiff failed to disclose the lawsuit
he 	filed 	in 	Colorado 	district 	court”; 	Lee 	v. 	Shields, 	No.
3:25cv1819/AW/ZCB, 2025 WL 3532149, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2025)
(dismissing without prejudice for failure to disclose a single § 2254
habeas petition), adopted, 2025 WL 3532143 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2025).
Case 3:25-cv-02458-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 9

6
Additionally, because the undisclosed actions were “case[s] in federal
court . . . dismissed . . . as malicious . . . or prior to service[,]” these cases
should have been disclosed in response to Question A of the litigation
history section. 	(Id. at 14). 	But Plaintiff failed to reference these cases
anywhere in his amended complaint.4
The prior litigation portion of the complaint form serves important
purposes. First, it permits efficient consideration of whether the prisoner
is entitled to pursue the current action under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision. 	Second, it allows the Court to
determine 	whether 	an 	action 	is 	related 	to, 	or otherwise 	should 	be
considered in conjunction with, another lawsuit. 	Third, it enables the
Court to determine whether any issues raised in the current action have
been previously decided by another judge. These purposes are thwarted,
and the efficiency of the judicial system diminished, when a prisoner
misstates his litigation history on the complaint form.
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from following the
rules, including the requirement that litigants be truthful with the Court.
See Kendrick v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425,
4 Plaintiff also failed to reference the undisclosed cases in his initial
complaint. (See Doc. 1).
Case 3:25-cv-02458-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 9

7
at *3 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022) (stating that pro se litigants “owe the same
duty of candor to the court as imposed on any other litigant”). As another
judge on this Court has explained: “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. And word does get around
the prisons.” 	Rodriguez v. Inch, No. 4:19cv191, 2020 WL 3050231, at *1
(N.D. Fla. June 7, 2020); see also Strickland, 739 F. App’x at 588 (“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.”).5
5 Plaintiff’s failure to investigate his litigation history prior to filing this
case does not excuse his inaccurate disclosure. See Bashir v. Meherg, No.
5:22cv142, 2022 WL 4471965, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2022) (“The Court
did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that he does not have access to
PACER to research his prior cases and, as a result, he had to rely on his
memory to recall his litigation history. 	Even if that is true, it does not
excuse Plaintiff’s untruthful answers to the litigation history questions
on the civil rights complaint form because, like every other inmate,
Plaintiff has an obligation to maintain information (or at least a list of
case numbers) for all of his prior cases, and if he does not have that
information, he can (and should) request it from the appropriate clerks’
offices before filing a new case.”).
Case 3:25-cv-02458-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/04/26 Page 7 of 9

8
As detailed above, Plaintiff misstated his prior litigation history on
the complaint form. 	Consistent with the Eleventh Circuit precedent
previously cited and the Local Rules, this matter should be dismissed
without 	prejudice.6 	See 	McNair, 	143 	F.4th 	at 	1307-08 	(affirming
dismissal without prejudice where pro se prisoner failed to accurately
disclose 	his 	litigation 	history 	as 	required 	by 	the 	Court-approved
complaint form and the Local Rules); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1
(authorizing dismissal for a party’s failure to comply with an applicable
rule or order).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED without prejudice under the
Court’s inherent power to manage its docket and enforce the Local Rules,
based on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
6 Providing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose
the previous lawsuit would be an inadequate sanction. See Young v. Sec’y
for Dep’t of Corr., 380 F. App’x 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that
district court did not abuse its discretion by not providing a prisoner with
an opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose lawsuits that should
have been disclosed initially).
Case 3:25-cv-02458-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/04/26 Page 8 of 9

9
At Pensacola, Florida, this 4th day of February 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
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 the objections on 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 	unobjected-to 	factual 	and 	legal
conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-02458-AW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/04/26 Page 9 of 9