BRAZILL v. FLOYD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

NATHANIEL R. BRAZILL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:25-cv-109-TKW-MJF

JOSEPH M. FLOYD, et al.,

Defendants.

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed because

Plaintiff failed to comply with a court order and repeatedly has failed to

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a Florida prisoner housed at the Quincy Annex. Doc. 9.

Plaintiff initiated this action on May 13, 2025, by filing a pro se civil-

rights complaint and a motion for leave to exceed the 25-page limit

imposed by Local Rule 5.7(B). See Docs. 1, 2; see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R.

5.7(B). Plaintiff is challenging the conditions of his confinement at the

Jackson Correctional Institution in October 2021.

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s original complaint was thirty-eight pages long and

named nine Defendants: Joseph Floyd, Glenn Hancock, James Conrad,

Gary Brown, Timothy Benton, Blake Henson, Sheryl Keith, Jerry

Schuler, and Angela Gordon. Doc. 1 at 3–6. All Defendants were officials

of the Florida Department of Corrections. Plaintiff’s claims were based

on the following incidents that occurred at Jackson CI:

● On October 8, 2021, Defendant Brown, at Defendant Floyd’s

direction, intimidated Plaintiff and warned Plaintiff against

writing grievances after he filed a September 16, 2021, grievance

against Officer Darnell Barnes, who was not named as a Defendant

in this action, for denying him access to the law library. Id. at 15–

16.

● On October 28, 2021, Defendants Floyd and Benton threatened

and intimidated Plaintiff after he wrote a letter to Defendant

Gordon “complaining about the ongoing unlawful retaliation” by

Defendant Hancock, who allegedly banned Plaintiff from working

as a law clerk. Id. at 16–18. At Defendant Floyd’s direction,

Defendants Benton Brown, and Conrad searched Plaintiff’s cell and

left it in disarray. Id. at 17–19.

● On November 12, 2021, Defendant Shuler threatened Plaintiff

and directed Defendant Conrad to place Plaintiff in solitary

confinement after Plaintiff wrote several grievances complaining

about the October 28, 2021, incident. Defendant Conrad also issued

Plaintiff a disciplinary report (“DR”) charging Plaintiff with

disrespect to Defendant Shuler. Id. at 19–22.

● On November 18, 2021, Defendants Keith and Henson conducted

a disciplinary hearing on the DR and found Plaintiff guilty. Id. at

22.

● Defendants Hancock and Gordon failed to take corrective action

concerning the above incidents.

Plaintiff maintained that the Defendants were properly joined in a

single lawsuit because they violated his First-Amendment rights through

a “coordinated campaign” of retaliation for filing grievances, which the

supervisory Defendants failed to correct. Id. at 23–24, 26–27.

B. The Undersigned’s Order Requiring Plaintiff to Replead

On May 20, 2025, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s motion to

exceed the 25-page limit. Doc. 5 at 3. The undersigned determined that

the excessive length was not warranted because Plaintiff improperly

joined multiple defendants and unrelated claims. The undersigned

explained the legal standard for joining parties and claims, Fed. R. Civ.

P. 18(a), 20(a)(2), and the “logical relationship” test. Doc. 5 at 3–6. The

undersigned also explained why Plaintiff’s complaint violated these

standards. Id. at 6–7. Additionally, the undersigned explained that the

insertion of conclusory “supervisory liability” claims against higher

ranking Defendants for denying Plaintiff’s grievances about the

unrelated events is an insufficient basis for joinder. Id. at 6.

The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to correct the misjoinder by filing

an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Northern

District of Florida. Id. at 8. The undersigned specifically instructed

Plaintiff that, among other requirements, any amended complaint must

“name as Defendants only those persons who properly may be joined in

one lawsuit under Rule 20(a)(2),” and “limit the factual allegations to the

same incident or occurrence.” Id. Furthermore, the undersigned warned

Plaintiff that failure to correct the excessive-length and misjoinder

problems likely would result in this case being dismissed for failure to

follow an order of this court and failure to comply with applicable court

rules. Id. at 10.

On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint, Doc. 6,

which he amended less than two weeks later. Doc. 9. Plaintiff’s second

amended complaint is the operative complaint.

C. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is twenty-eight pages long.

Doc. 9. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint asserts claims of First-

Amendment retaliation and supervisory liability against five

Defendants: Joseph Floyd, Glenn Hancock, Gary Brown, Timothy

Benton, and Angela Gordon. Plaintiff’s claims are based on two separate

incidents that occurred at Jackson CI on October 8, 2021, and October

28, 2021. Id. at 18–19. Although Plaintiff removed a few Defendants and

claims from his second amended complaint, he once again exceeded the

page limit and improperly joined the remaining Defendants.

The facts surrounding the October 8, 2021, incident are as follows:

● On September 16, 2021, Officer Donnell Barnes, who is not a

party to this action, denied Plaintiff access to the prison’s law

library. Id. at 8.

● On October 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a formal grievance with

Defendant Hancock regarding the September 16, 2021, incident. Id.

at 8–9.

● On October 8, 2021, Defendant Brown, at Defendant Floyd’s

direction, intimidated Plaintiff and warned him against writing

further grievances. Id. at 9.

● At the time of this incident Defendants Floyd and Hancock held

supervisory roles at Jackson Correctional Institution and

Defendant Gordon served as the regional director of the institution.

Id. at 8–10.

Plaintiff asserts a First-Amendment retaliation claim against

Brown and supervisory liability claims against Floyd, Hancock, and

Gordon for the “harassment and intimidation” that allegedly occurred on

October 8, 2021. Id. at 18–19.

The facts surrounding the October 28, 2021, incident are as follows:

● On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Defendant Gordon

complaining about “the ongoing unlawful retaliation by

[Defendant] Hancock banning him from assignment as a Law

Clerk.” Id. at 10.

● Defendant Gordon notified Defendants Hancock and Floyd about

the October 18, 2021, letter. Id. at 11.

● On October 28, 2021, Defendant Floyd and Benton made

intimidating and threatening statements to Plaintiff because of his

grievances. Id. at 11–12.

● Defendant Floyd directed Defendants Benton and Brown “to go to

[Plaintiff’s] dorm.” Defendants Benton and Brown searched

Plaintiff’s room and left it in disarray. Id. at 12.

Plaintiff asserts First-Amendment retaliation claims against Floyd,

Benton, and Brown for threats, harassment, intimidation, and the search

that occurred on October 28, 2021. Id. at 19. He also asserts claims of

supervisory liability and failure to train against Hancock and Gordon

related to the October 28, 2021, incident. Id.

FEDERAL RULES REGARDING PLEADING AND JOINDER

A. The Local and Federal Pleading Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain

“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Northern District of Florida

Local Rule 5.7 imposes a 25-page limit on pro se civil-rights complaints.

See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(B).

B. The Federal Standard for Joinder

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a plaintiff to join only

related claims and defendants in a single complaint. In order to properly

join defendants under Rule 20, the plaintiff must establish that he is

asserting a right to relief against the defendants “jointly, severally, or in

the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences,” and that “any

question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

Once a plaintiff establishes that each defendant is properly joined,

only then may he join as many claims as he has against each party per

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a); see Charles Alan Wright, et al.,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1585 (3d ed. Apr. 2018) (“Once parties

are properly joined under [Rule 20] as to a particular claim, additional

claims, whether they are related or unrelated or they are by or against

all or less than all of the parties may be joined under Rule 18(a).”).

Courts apply the “logical relationship” test to determine whether

claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence for joinder

purposes. See, e.g., Smith v. Trans-Siberian Orchestra, 728 F. Supp. 2d

1315, 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (citing Republic Health Corp. v. Lifemark

Hosp. Corp. of Fla., 755 F.2d 1453, 1455 (11th Cir. 1985)). “Under this

test, there is a logical relationship when the same operative facts serve

as the basis of [the] claims. . . .” Republic Health, 755 F.2d at 1455

(internal quotation marks omitted).1

In applying rules regarding joinder, the court also must consider

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and its goals of preventing

unwieldy litigation, ensuring the payment of filing fees, and limiting

prisoners’ ability to bring frivolous cases. As the Seventh Circuit

observed in George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007):

Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with

unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims

against different defendants belong in different suits, not only

to prevent the sort of morass that [a multi]-claim, [multi]-

defendant suit produce[s] but also to ensure that prisoners

pay the required filing fees—for the Prison Litigation Reform

Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that

1 The standard for whether claims arise from the same transaction or

occurrence for Rule 20 purposes is the same as that used for compulsory

counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13. See Smith v.

Trans-Siberian Orchestra, 728 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2010).

any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required

fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

507 F.3d at 607.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff Failed to Reduce the Excessive Length of His

Complaint

At twenty-eight pages long, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint

still exceeds the 25-page limit, despite the undersigned ordering Plaintiff

to bring his complaint into compliance with Local Rule 5.7(B). The

excessive length is not warranted and, in fact, is a direct result of Plaintiff

continuing to mis-join multiple Defendants and unrelated claims, as

discussed below. In addition, Plaintiff alleges numerous irrelevant and

unnecessary facts, some of which date back to November 2015. Doc. 9 at

9, 13.

B. Plaintiff Failed to Correct the Misjoinder

Although Plaintiff dropped four Defendants named in the original

complaint, Plaintiff still fails to plead at least one claim involving all five

Defendants that arises out of the same occurrence. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

20(a)(2). Instead, Plaintiff continues to assert unrelated claims against

multiple prison officials arising out of two separate incidents, which

stemmed from two separate grievances Plaintiff filed on two different

dates. Because Plaintiff’s claims do not rest on the same operative facts,

he cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 20.

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that both incidents were rooted in

retaliation for Plaintiff’s grievance-writing is an insufficient basis for

joinder. See Skillern v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr. Comm’r, 379 F. App’x 859, 860

(11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (prisoner failed to demonstrate that Eighth-

Amendment claims against multiple defendants arose out of same

occurrence or series of occurrences where the only “connection between

the people and events described” was that the action allegedly “showed

indifference to his failing health”); Daker v. Ward, No. 22-10632, 2023

WL 3317984, at *3 (11th Cir. May 9, 2023) (prisoner’s conclusory

allegation that defendants were properly joined because they

maintained, executed, or enforced the same department policies and

customs that violated prisoner’s First-Amendment right of access to the

courts was insufficient to satisfy Rule 20).

Similarly, Plaintiff’s attempt to tie both incidents to an “ongoing

unlawful retaliatory campaign” begun by Hancock and permitted by

Gordon is unavailing. See Doc. 9 at 9–10, 13–16. According to Plaintiff,

the “retaliatory campaign” involved Hancock’s decisions not to give

Plaintiff a work assignment in the law library at Jackson CI from

January 2020 to December 2021, and Hancock’s and Gordon’s failure to

remedy another officer’s (Jonathan Jones) retaliatory transfer of Plaintiff

from Graceville CF to Jackson CI in January 2020. Id. at 9, 14–16. These

allegations of retaliation against Hancock and Gordon were the subject

of two prior lawsuits that ended in final judgments on the merits against

Plaintiff and in favor of Hancock and Gordon. See Brazill v. Jones, 2024

WL 1723555 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2024), report and recommendation

adopted, 2024 WL 1717392 (N.D. Fla. Apr 22, 2024); Brazill v. Brannon,

2024 WL 3260911 (N.D. Fla. June 11, 2024), report and recommendation

adopted, 2024 WL 3253079 (N.D. Fla. July 1, 2024). Thus, Plaintiff’s

attempt to derive a basis for joinder from these previously litigated facts

and claims is precluded. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008)

(explaining claim preclusion and issue preclusion).

In short, despite the undersigned giving Plaintiff notice, an

opportunity to comply, and a warning about the consequences of non-

compliance, Plaintiff again has mis-joined multiple Defendants and

unrelated claims without a plausible basis for joinder.

C. The Appropriate Sanction Is Dismissal Without Prejudice

“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint

for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.

Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);

N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any

claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a

court order”). Thus, a district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte

when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order requiring him to correct

misjoinder. See Daker, 2023 WL 2023 WL 3317984, at *3 (“[I]t was within

the discretion of the district court to manage its docket by dismissing the

amended complaint for failing to comply with its order [to correct

misjoinder].” (quoting Magluta v. Samples, 162 F.3d 662, 664 (11th Cir.

1998))); Smith v. Owens, 625 F. App’x 924, 928 (11th Cir. July 16, 2015)

(dismissing claims because plaintiff’s complaint “alleged a variety of

unrelated claims against different corrections officers, arising out of

different events and occurring on different dates”).

A district court also may dismiss a complaint sua sponte when a

plaintiff fails to comply with the Northern District’s 25-page rule. See

Logan v. Godwin, No. 22-14171, 2023 WL 5528912, at *2 (11th Cir. Aug.

28, 2023) (district court properly dismissed case without prejudice “to

enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of law suits” after pro se

plaintiff disregarded clear instructions not to exceed the page age

limitation)

In light of Plaintiff’s noncompliance after receiving notice of the

page-length and joinder requirements―and a dismissal warning―the

undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss this case

without prejudice. Daker, 2023 WL 3317984, at *3 (denying a second

leave to amend and dismissing the complaint after the plaintiff failed to

comply with joinder requirements and an order to correct the misjoinder).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned respectfully

RECOMMENDS that the District Court:

1. DISMISS this case without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with a court order and applicable court rules.

2. DIRECT the clerk of court to close this case file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 1st day of July, 2025.

/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

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.