HICKS v. BAXTER et al

Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
VICTOR WADE HICKS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:26-cv-73-MCR/MJF
SERGEANT BAXTER, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff Victor W. Hicks violated the Local Rules by failing
to disclose fully and accurately his litigation history, the District Court
should dismiss this case without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Hicks is a Florida inmate currently confined at the Santa Rosa
Correctional 	Institution. 	Hicks’s 	Florida 	Department 	of 	Corrections
inmate number is “956645.” Doc. 1 at 1, 2.
On March 9, 2026, Hicks initiated this civil action by filing a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 1. Hicks is suing four prison
officials of the Jackson Correctional Institution. Id. at 1–3.
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 11

Page 2 of 11
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Screening of Hicks’s 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)).
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
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 11

Page 3 of 11
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.
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.
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 11

Page 4 of 11
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, Hicks is required to complete the standardized civil-rights
complaint form and to complete the form according to its instructions.
B. 	Hicks’s Responses to Questions on the Complaint Form
Hicks provided answers to Section VIII of the civil rights complaint
form which requires Hicks to disclose his litigation history. Doc. 1 at 9–
12. 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?
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 4 of 11

Page 5 of 11
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?
Id. at 9–10. 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. at 10, 12.
Hicks responded “Yes” to each question on the complaint form and
disclosed the following cases:
• 	Hicks v. Hernando Cnty. Detention Ctr., No. 8:24-cv-1520-
SDM-TGM (M.D. Fla.);1
• 	Hicks v. Floyd, No. 5:26-cv-46-TKW-MJF (N.D. Fla.);
• 	Hicks v. Warden, Hernando Cnty. Detention Ctr., No. 8:24-cv-
1602-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla.);
• 	Hicks v. Florida., No. 6:17-cv-02108 (M.D. Fla.);
• 	Hicks v. Florida., No. 1D2025-0474 (Fla 1st Dist. Ct. App);
• 	Florida v. Hicks, No. 2023-CF-1307 (Fla. Hernando Cnty. Ct.);
and
• 	Hicks v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 1D2019-2186 (Fla. 1st Dist.
Ct. App.).
1 	Hicks filed this case under his Hernando County inmate number:
2300188603.
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 5 of 11

Page 6 of 11
At the end of the civil rights complaint form, Hicks 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.” Id. at 12–13. Thus, Hicks has in
effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, these were the only
cases that Hicks had filed in federal and state court.
C. 	Hicks’s Omissions
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the undersigned takes
judicial notice that at the time Hicks filed his complaint in this case,
Hicks had filed at least two additional cases in federal court that the
complaint form required him to disclose.
On September 27, 2023, Hicks, while confined at the Hernando
County Detention Center, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
Middle District of Florida challenging the constitutionality of his pretrial
detention. Hicks v. Sheriff, Hernando Cnty., 8:23-cv-2185-CEH-TGW. On
October 27, 2023, the for the Middle District of Florida dismissed the
petition. Id. Order of Dismissal, ECF No. 3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2023). This
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 6 of 11

Page 7 of 11
case bears Hick’s name and his Hernando County inmate number:
2300188603.
In addition, on October 15, 2015, Hicks filed a habeas corpus
petition in the Middle District of Florida challenging his 2017 conviction
for lewd or lascivious molestation in Orange County Circuit Court Case
No. 2013-CF-16529. See Hicks v. Sec’y. Dep’t of Corr., No. 6:15-cv-1735
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2015). On November 15, 2015, the district court for
the Middle District of Florida dismissed the petition. 	Id., Order of
Dismissal, Doc. 4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2015). This case bears Hicks’s name
and DC# 956645.
These cases were responsive to Question VIII(C) on the complaint
form because they are lawsuits or habeas corpus petitions Hicks filed in
federal court that challenged his conviction or related to the conditions of
his confinement. By failing to disclose these cases, Hicks violated the
complaint form’s explicit instructions and Hicks’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 a duty of candor to the court).
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 7 of 11

Page 8 of 11
D. 	The Appropriate Sanction Is Dismissal Without Prejudice
“[A] district court may . . . dismiss a case under its inherent
authority, which it possesses as a means of managing its own docket so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” McNair,
143 F.4th at 1306 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
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; Id. at 1306 (noting a district court’s “inherent
authority to dismiss [a] complaint without prejudice as a sanction for [the
plaintiff’s] failure to disclose his full litigation history as required by the
standard inmate complaint form.”).
Here, Hicks violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose his entire
litigation history, as required by the duly adopted standard complaint
form. Hicks knew from reaching the complaint form that he was required
to disclose all lawsuits or habeas corpus petitions Hicks filed in federal
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 8 of 11

Page 9 of 11
court that challenged his conviction or related to the conditions of his
confinement. Doc. 1 at 8, 12. Hicks also knew that the penalty for failing
to disclose all prior cases was dismissal of this case. Id. at 8; see also N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 41.1; Hicks v. Floyd, No. 5:26-cv-46-TKW-MJF (N.D. Fla.)
(dismissing complaint because Hicks failed to comply with the complaint
form’s explicit instructions and failure to truthfully disclose his litigation
history).
A penalty is warranted both to deter Hicks from such conduct and
to 	deter 	others 	from 	similar 	misrepresentations 	and 	omissions. 	An
appropriate sanction for Hicks’s violation of the Local Rules by failing to
comply with the complaint form’s explicit instructions is to dismiss this
case without prejudice.2 McNair, 143 F.4th at 1308; see also 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.”);
Strickland v. United States, 739 F. App’x 587, 588 (11th Cir. 2018) (“A
2 	Because Hicks alleges that the incidents giving rise to his claims
occurred on December 2, 2024, Florida’s four-year statute of limitations
likely would not preclude Hicks from refiling this action in the near
future. Shelton v. Rohrs, 406 F. App’x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010).
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 9 of 11

Page 10 of 11
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.”).
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS 	this 	case 	without 	prejudice—pursuant 	to 	the
District Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the
Local Rules—based on Hicks’s failure to comply with the complaint
form’s explicit instructions and failure to truthfully disclose his litigation
history.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 25th day of March 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 10 of 11

Page 11 of 11
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 5:26-cv-00073-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 Page 11 of 11