Robert Steven Price v. Michael Hammond

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: April 8, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00072
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT STEVEN PRICE

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:25-cv-72-AW/MJF

MICHAEL HAMMOND,

Defendant. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Because Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose fully and accurately his litigation history, the District Court should dismiss this case without prejudice. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a Florida inmate currently confined at Graceville Correctional Facility. Plaintiff’s Florida Department of Corrections inmate number is C81426. Doc. 16 at 1. On March 12, 2026, Plaintiff initiated this civil action by filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1 at 1.

Page 1 of 13 DISCUSSION

A. Screening of Plaintiff’s Second Amended 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 Page 2 of 13 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. Page 3 of 13 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, Plaintiff is required to complete the standardized civil- rights complaint form and to complete the form according to its instructions. B. Plaintiff’s Responses to Questions on the Complaint Form Plaintiff provided answers to Section VIII of the civil rights complaint form which requires Plaintiff to disclose his litigation history.

Doc. 16 at 11. 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?

Page 4 of 13 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 11–12. Plaintiff responded, “Yes” to each question on the complaint form and disclosed the following cases: • Price v. Paul, No. 5:24-cv-64-TKW-MJF • Price v. Dixon, No. 5:24-cv-243-AW-HTC

• Price v. Collier, No. 5:25-cv-50-AW-MJF • Price v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, No. 25-13962. At the end of the civil rights complaint form, Plaintiff 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 15. Thus, Plaintiff has in

effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, these were the only cases that Plaintiff had filed in federal and state court. C. Plaintiff’s Omission

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the undersigned takes judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff filed his second amended

Page 5 of 13 complaint in this case, Plaintiff had filed one other case in federal court

that the complaint form required him to disclose, but that he did not disclose. That case was: • Price v. Walker, No. 5:24-cv-127-TKW-MJF.

This case is responsive to Question(s) VIII-A on the complaint form because the District Court dismissed this case prior to service. Additionally, this case is attributable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff’s

complaint in this case bore his inmate number. By failing to disclose this case, Plaintiff violated the complaint form’s explicit instructions and Plaintiff’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 the same duty of candor to the court as imposed on any other litigant”).

D. The Materiality of Plaintiff’s Omission Courts have recognized that information regarding a plaintiff’s litigation history is useful to federal courts:

[I]t allows efficient consideration of whether the prisoner is entitled to pursue the current action under the “three strikes” provision of the [PLRA]; it allows consideration of whether the action is related to, or otherwise should be Page 6 of 13 considered in conjunction with or by the same judge who presided over, another action; it allows consideration of whether any ruling in the other action affects the prisoner’s current case. All of these things are appropriately considered in connection with the preliminary review of such a complaint under the [PLRA].

Spires v. Taylor, No. 3:00-cv-249-RH, Order of Dismissal, Doc. 10 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2000). Also, this “information may assist a court in identifying suits that are repetitious of prior or pending lawsuits and hence frivolous.” In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 969 (2d Cir. 1989); see Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that, in assessing frivolousness, courts may consider “a litigant’s history of bringing unmeritorious litigation”). Additionally, because prisoner-plaintiffs generally proceed pro se, information regarding a plaintiff’s litigation

history assists district courts in determining the plaintiff’s experience and familiarity with the legal terrain. “Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional

obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.” Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d

1254, 1261–62 (2d Cir. 1984). Courts also have “a responsibility to Page 7 of 13 prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the judicial

machinery needed by others.” Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074. Requiring prisoner-plaintiffs to divulge their record of litigation serves all these compelling interests. Thus, to conserve judicial resources and effectively

manage their dockets, courts may require prisoner-plaintiffs to disclose their litigation history. See Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that district courts have

“unquestionable authority to control their own dockets; this authority includes broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them”).

The time that district courts are required to expend to verify the cases a plaintiff has filed but failed to identify can be considerable. This is especially true in this case where a plaintiff has filed cases in other

jurisdictions and under additional inmate numbers. When courts cannot rely on the statements or responses made by parties, the quality of justice is threatened. Courts, therefore, cannot tolerate false or misleading

responses in pleadings or motions.

Page 8 of 13 Here, Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose his

entire litigation history, as required by the duly adopted standard complaint form. Plaintiff knew from reading the complaint form that he was required to disclose all his prior litigation. Doc. 16 at 10. Plaintiff

also knew that the penalty for failing to disclose all prior cases was dismissal of this case. Id.; see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. In fact, the undersigned twice afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to

amend his complaint, and Plaintiff could have used those opportunities to disclose fully his litigation history. Docs. 13, 15. There is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to respond truthfully to the questions on the complaint

form. These questions are straightforward and easily understandable. See Kendrick, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (noting that the questions on the court-form are not complicated and a plaintiff’s pro se status was not an

excuse for failing to honestly answer the straightforward questions). Plaintiff admits he is an experienced pro se litigator in both federal and state courts. Thus, he understood the importance of the questions

regarding his litigation history and the consequences of failing to respond truthfully and accurately to the questions regarding his prior litigation.

Page 9 of 13 Furthermore, Plaintiff is in a superior position to know whether he filed

cases or appeals, and if so, in which courts he had filed those cases and appeals. The District Court, therefore, should not allow Plaintiff’s false

response to go unpunished. A penalty is warranted both to deter Plaintiff from such conduct and to deter others from similar misrepresentations and omissions. If Plaintiff suffered no penalty for his untruthful

response, there would be little or no disincentive for Plaintiff’s attempt to evade or undermine the purpose of the form. E. The Appropriate Sanction Is Dismissal Without Prejudice

An appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s violation of the Local Rules by failing to comply with the complaint form’s explicit instructions is to dismiss this case without prejudice. 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 sanction less than dismissal would signal that a failure to disclose filings is an infraction without consequence. It would invite other

Page 10 of 13 prisoners to omit their litigation history, thus draining the judicial

system’s time and resources.”). F. No Lesser Sanction Would Suffice A sanction less than dismissal would not suffice to deter Plaintiff’s

conduct. For example, providing Plaintiff yet another opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose the previous lawsuits would equate to overlooking his abuse of the judicial process, because that course of action

would entail no penalty. See Young v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 380 F. App’x 939, 940–41 (11th Cir. 2010) (district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint so that the plaintiff could disclose

lawsuits that should have been disclosed initially); Harris v. Warden, 498 F. App’x 962, 964–65 (11th Cir. 2012) (rejecting prisoner’s argument that it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss case without allowing him “to

correct” his omissions by disclosing his litigation history; record showed that prisoner “affirmatively misrepresented the facts” by failing to disclose prior cases and that he “knew, or from reading the Complaint

form should have known, that disclosure of the relevant prior actions was required”); Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006)

Page 11 of 13 (“[T]he district court was correct to conclude that to allow [the plaintiff]

to then acknowledge what he should have disclosed earlier would serve to overlook his abuse of the judicial process.”). CONCLUSION

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 Plaintiff’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 8th day of April 2026.

/s/ Michael J. Frank Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to a magistrate judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive Page 12 of 13 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.

Page 13 of 13