SIFFORD v. VAUGHN

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
ROOSEVELT F. SIFFORD,
FDOC #V61053,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2527/LC/ZCB
C. VAUGHN,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, 	a 	prisoner of the 	Florida 	Department 	of Corrections
(FDOC) has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(Doc.
1). 	Having 	performed 	its 	screening 	obligation 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1915A(a)-(b), 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
a prisoner’s case may be dismissed without prejudice for failing to
Case 3:25-cv-02527-LC-ZCB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 9

2
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
221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal for failure to disclose
1 There are a lot of unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases that say the same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[s] 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-02527-LC-ZCB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 9

3
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.
1 at 8-13). 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 9). Plaintiff answered “No” in response to Question A
and disclosed no cases.2 	(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 10). Plaintiff answered
“Yes” in response to Question B and disclosed three cases (id. at 10-11):
• 	Case No. 9:25-cv-80473 (S.D. Fla.);
• 	Case No. 2:24-cv-517 (M.D. Fla.);
2 Plaintiff initially listed three cases in response to Question A but
crossed them out. Those cases appear to be No. 9:25cv80473 (S.D. Fla.),
No. 2:24cv517 (M.D. Fla.), and a case in the Southern District of Florida
from 2/25/23 that resulted in a settlement. 	(Doc. 1 at 9). 	Plaintiff later
disclosed these cases in response to Question B.
Case 3:25-cv-02527-LC-ZCB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 9

4
• 	Unknown case filed against Deputy Alvin Dues that ended in
settlement (S.D. Fla.).3
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 10). 	Plaintiff answered “No” in
response to Question C and disclosed no cases.4 	(Id. at 10, 12-13).
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. 1 at 13-14).
Plaintiff, 	therefore, 	certified 	that—at 	the 	time 	he 	filed 	his
complaint on December 1, 2025—he had fully disclosed his litigation
history.
The 	Court 	has 	researched 	Plaintiff’s 	litigation 	history 	and
3 The Court believes this case is Case No. 9:21-cv-80538 (S.D. Fla.) since
that 	case 	was 	filed 	against 	Deputy 	A. 	Dues 	and 	was 	resolved 	by
settlement in February and March of 2023.
4 Like Question A, Plaintiff initially disclosed a case in response to
Question C but crossed it out. (Doc. 1 at 12). This case appears to be the
already disclosed Case No. 9:21-cv-80538 (S.D. Fla.) since it was a case
against Deputy Alvin Dues that ended in settlement in February of 2023.
(Doc. 1 at 12).
Case 3:25-cv-02527-LC-ZCB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 9

5
discovered that he failed to accurately disclose it. According to the Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, Plaintiff filed the
following undisclosed actions before filing his complaint:5
• 	Sifford v. Columbia Annex, et al., No. 3:21-cv-1282/BJD/LLL (M.D.
Fla.) 	(§ 	1983 	action 	alleging 	deliberate 	indifference 	by 	prison
officials; dismissed prior to service on January 6, 2022);6
• 	Sifford v. Officer Shavers, et al., No. 2:23-cv-736/JLB/NPM (M.D.
Fla.) (§ 1983 action alleging excessive force by prison officials;
dismissed prior to service on January 23, 2024).7
Because these actions are cases “in federal court . . . dismissed . . . prior
to service[,]” they should have been disclosed in response to Question A
of 	the 	litigation 	history 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint. 	(Doc. 	1 	at 	9).
5 Plaintiff is identified by his name “Roosevelt Sifford” and his inmate
number “V61053” on the filings and/or dockets of these undisclosed cases.
Plaintiff similarly identifies himself here. (Doc. 1 at 1).
6 Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Discovery” in this case bearing his inmate
number 	and 	using 	the 	case 	number 	3:21-cv-1282, 	thereby 	showing
Plaintiff was aware of this case number. 	See Doc. 13, No. 3:21-cv-1282
(M.D. Fla.). 	Plaintiff also failed to disclose the Northern District of
Florida case number—4:21-cv-462/AW/MAF—that was used before the
case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida (3:21-cv-1282)
despite Plaintiff appearing to cross this number out on his “Motion for
Discovery” in the Middle District case.
7 	Among other things, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed 	in forma
pauperis in this case bearing its case number 2:23-cv-736 and Plaintiff’s
name and inmate number. See Docs. 12, 12-1, No. 2:23-cv-736 (M.D. Fla).
Case 3:25-cv-02527-LC-ZCB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 9

6
Additionally, since they are lawsuits in federal court “relating to the
conditions of [Plaintiff’s] confinement[,]” they could have been disclosed
in response to Question C. 	(Id. at 10). 	But Plaintiff failed to reference
them anywhere in his complaint.
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,
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”). 	The
undersigned agrees with another judge on this Court who stated the
Case 3:25-cv-02527-LC-ZCB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 9

7
following: “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)
(Hinkle, J.); 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.”).8
8 Plaintiff losing his property (Doc. 1 at 11) does not excuse his failure to
disclose his full litigation history. 	See Bashir v. Meherg, No. 5:22cv142,
2022 WL 4471965, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2022) (Wetherell, J.) (“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.”) (emphasis added and internal citations
omitted).
Case 3:25-cv-02527-LC-ZCB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 9

8
As detailed above, Plaintiff misstated his prior litigation history on
the complaint form that the Local Rules required him to use. Consistent
with the Eleventh Circuit precedent previously cited, this matter should
be dismissed without prejudice.9 	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); White v. Quinn, No.
3:25cv955-LC-HTC, 2025 WL 2198610, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2025)
(dismissing prisoner’s civil rights complaint without prejudice under the
Court’s “inherent power for [the prisoner’s] failure to truthfully disclose
his litigation history”); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A) (requiring pro se
parties to file civil rights complaints using a Court-approved form); N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (allowing the Court to dismiss claims for a party’s failure
to comply with an applicable rule or order).
9 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); see also Rodriguez, 2020 WL 3050231, at
*1 (stating that “dismissal without prejudice is not too severe a sanction”
for failing to accurately disclose litigation history).
Case 3:25-cv-02527-LC-ZCB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 8 of 9

9
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. 	All pending motions be DENIED as moot.
3. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 12th day of December 2025.
/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-02527-LC-ZCB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 9 of 9