GOLDEN v. DIXON

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: February 19, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-00493
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SAMUEL CHRISTOPHER GOLDEN, Plaintiff,

v. 4:23cv493–WS/MAF RICKY D. DIXON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “OBJECTION” (CONSTRUED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT) On December 20, 2023, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation (ECF No. 6), recommending dismissal of this case because Samuel Christopher Golden (“Golden”) affirmatively misrepresented his litigation

history. Golden filed objections (ECF No. 8) to that report and recommendation, along with a motion (ECF No. 7) for an order compelling the Florida Department of Corrections to provide him with a detailed litigation history. On January 12,

2024, the magistrate judge entered a second report and recommendation (ECF No. 9), recommending denial of Golden’s motion to compel (ECF No. 7). By order (ECF No. 10) entered January 24, 2024, the undersigned dismissed Page 2 of 4 this case without prejudice as recommended by the magistrate judge. The case was dismissed as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1)

because Golden failed to truthfully and completely disclose his prior litigation history. Judgment (ECF No. 11) was entered on January 24, and the case was closed.

On January 25, one day after the case was closed and, presumably, before he received a copy of the order and judgment entered on January 24, Golden submitted to prison staff for mailing a document entitled “Objection to Report & Recommendation & Motion for Enlargement of Time” (ECF No. 12). In that

document, Golden objects to both of the magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations and requests additional time to supply the court with his missing litigation history, explaining that “had he ANY idea (28) or so years ago that he

would some day need all this information, he would most definitely have made some sorta provision to retain it.” ECF No. 12, p.3. Because Golden’s latest filing was received by the court after judgment was entered, the court construes Golden’s

“Objection to Report & Recommendation & Motion for Enlargement of Time” as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. The magistrate judge’s reasons for recommending dismissal in this case

were well explained and will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that dismissal, Page 3 of 4 without prejudice, is an appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to completely and accurately disclose his lengthy1 litigation history. Clearly, as correctly noted by

the magistrate judge, Golden knew, when he filed this case, that complete and accurate disclosure of his litigation history was required. Because he failed to provide such disclosure, the undersigned declines to set aside the order and

judgment entered on January 24, 2024. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Golden’s “Objection to Report & Recommendation & Motion for Enlargement of Time” (ECF No. 12)—construed as a motion to alter or amend

judgment—is DENIED. 2. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 9), recommending denial of Golden’s motion for order compelling the Florida

Department of Corrections to provide a detailed litigation history, is ADOPTED

1 Golden listed thirteen (13) prior cases in his complaint, two of which were the same case. He failed to list many of his twenty-nine (29) appeals to the Florida First District Court of Appeal, twenty-three (23) cases that he filed in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit, as well as other cases filed in the Florida Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Golden is a frequent-filer who has been sanctioned at least once before to dissuade him from further abusive filings. See Golden v. Estate of Tanzler, 351 So. 3d 125, 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (listing, little more than a year ago in a published decision, twenty-nine (29) cases filed in the First District Court of Appeal). Page 4 of 4 and incorporated into this order by reference. 3. Golden’s “Motion for Order Compelling FDOC to Provide a Detailed

Litigation History” is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of February , 2024.

s/ William Stafford WILLIAM STAFFORD SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE