The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
RANDY WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:25cv955-LC-HTC
WARDEN QUINN, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Randy White, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of his conditions of confinement at
Santa Rosa Correctional Institution. Doc. 1. After reviewing the complaint, the
undersigned concludes this action should be dismissed because White has failed to
truthfully disclose his litigation history.
I. Legal Standard
Because White is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and seeking relief
from government officials or entities, the Court must dismiss his complaint, or any
portion thereof, if it determines it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b); 1915(e)(2)(B). Additionally,
the Court has inherent power to dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s failure to comply
with orders of the Court, this Court’s local rules, or for abusing the judicial process.
See McNair v. Johnson, 2025 WL 1923126 (11th Cir. July 14, 2025).
II. Discussion
Section VIII of the Court’s approved complaint form requires plaintiffs to
disclose their prior litigation history. The form advises plaintiffs that “failure to
disclose all prior state and federal cases … may result in the dismissal of this case.”
Doc. 1 at 8. The form also advises plaintiffs to “err on the side of caution” if they
are uncertain about whether a case should be identified. Id. Question A. asks the
plaintiff to identify “any case in federal court, including federal appellate court,
dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, for failure to state a claim, or prior to service.”
Doc. 1 at 9. Question C. asks the plaintiff to identify “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.
White answered “Yes” to Question A., but he failed to identify any cases.
Instead, he stated that his property had been thrown away and that he did not recall
his case numbers. White answered “No” to Question C., and did not identify any
cases.
Based on this Court’s independent investigation, White has failed to disclose,
at least, the following cases: White v. Pratt et al., 3:23-cv-24634-LC-ZCB, at Doc.
9 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2024) (case challenging conditions of confinement, which was
dismissed for failure to state a clam); White v. Hayes, et al., 3:25-cv-489-MW-ZCB,
at Doc. 1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2025) (case challenging conditions of confinement,
which is currently pending).
Despite these omissions, White signed the complaint form under penalty of
perjury. Id. at 13. White’s pro se status does not excuse him from conforming to
acceptable standards when interacting with the Court. If the Court cannot rely on
the statements or responses made by the parties, it threatens the quality of
justice. The Court will not tolerate false responses or statements in any pleading or
motion filed before it. If White suffered no penalty for his untruthful responses,
there would be little or no disincentive for his attempt to evade or undermine the
purpose of the form.
Also, White’s purported lack of memory or lack of access to his legal materials
does not justify his failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history. See Sheffield
v. Brown, 2023 WL 9105658 at *3 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2023) (“Plaintiff could have
requested his litigation history from the appropriate clerks of the various
courts…[a]s such, Plaintiff simply cannot blame his faulty memory for his failure to
respond to the questions.”); see also Owens v. Oliver, 2020 WL 6302330 at *2 (N.D.
Fla. Sept. 23, 2020) (“Thus, Owens’s explanation—a faulty memory regarding cases
filed long away—rings hollow. His explanation simply is not credible. Furthermore,
Owens could have—but failed to—seek a list of his cases from the respective clerk
of courts to ensure that he had not omitted any cases from his litigation history.”);
see also Beshears v. Marion Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2020 WL 5949790, at * 2
(11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020) (“District Court acted within its discretion in finding that
Mr. Beshears’s explanation for his failure to disclose this information - … that he
suffered from memory loss – was not a credible or persuasive reason for failing to
disclose his numerous other lawsuits”). Indeed, the Court notes that one of the cases
White failed to disclose was filed just a few months ago. And, even if White did not
have the case numbers, he could have provided other case information.
An appropriate sanction for White’s failure to provide the Court with true
factual responses is to dismiss this case without prejudice. See Bratton v. Sec’y
DOC, 2012 WL 2913171, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2012) (dismissing the case
without prejudice when prisoner failed to disclose one prior federal case that was
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Johnson v. Crawson, No. 5:08cv300-RS-
EMT, 2010 WL 1380247, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2010) (same); see also 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.”). As one district judge from this District stated in an order of
dismissal for failure to disclose, “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.” Rodriguez v. Inch, No. 4:19cv191-RH-HTC, Doc. 52 (N.D. Fla. June 7,
2020).
Indeed, “[a] plaintiff’s affirmative misrepresentation regarding his prior
litigation history, when the complaint form required disclosure of such history and
the plaintiff’s statements were made under penalty of perjury, constitutes abuse of
the judicial process warranting dismissal of the case without prejudice as ‘malicious’
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1).” Ealy v. CCA, 2015 WL 9647546, at
*1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2015) (collecting Eleventh Circuit cases affirming dismissals
without prejudice where plaintiffs failed to disclose their prior litigation history).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) and this Court’s inherent power for White’s
failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
2. That the clerk be directed to close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 16th day of July, 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within 14
days of the date of this 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. A copy of objections shall be served upon the Magistrate Judge and all other
parties. A party failing to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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.