CHAMBERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KEION NATHANIEL CHAMBERS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:26-cv-52-AW-MJF

RICKY DIXON, et al.,

Defendants.

/

AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This amended report and recommendation supersedes the

undersigned’s initial report and recommendation dated February 13,

2026, Doc. 6, which addressed Plaintiff’s initial complaint, Doc. 1. This

amended report and recommendation addresses Plaintiff’s amended

complaint, Doc. 8, which was delivered to prison officials for mailing on

February 12, 2026. The undersigned recommends that the District Court

dismiss this case without prejudice because Plaintiff violated the Local

Rules by failing to disclose his litigation history as required by the

complaint form’s explicit instructions.

Page 1 of 12

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections

(“FDC”) housed at the Wakulla Correctional Institution Annex. Plaintiff’s

FDC inmate number is 187933. Doc. 8 at 1, 2.

Plaintiff initiated this civil action on January 20, 2026, by filing a

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint

is the operative complaint. Doc. 8.

Plaintiff is suing seven prison officials at Wakulla CI. Plaintiff

alleges that the following events occurred on August 22, 2025: (1)

Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor and officers’ interfered with proper

medical treatment by attributing the fall to a drug overdose; and (2) other

officers subsequently used excessive force and sexually assaulted

Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that various supervisory officials

failed to properly address Plaintiff’s grievances regarding each incident.

Id. at 6–11. Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ conduct violated the First,

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 12–15. Plaintiff is seeking

compensatory, nominal and punitive damages. Id. at 16.

Page 2 of 12

DISCUSSION

A. Screening of Plaintiff’s 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), petition for cert. filed, No. 25-

808 (Jan. 6, 2026). “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)). These rules “are effective ‘unless modified or abrogated by the

judicial council of the relevant circuit.’” Brown v. Crawford County, 960

F.2d 1002, 1009 n.10 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2071(c)(1)).

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

Page 3 of 12

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

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 (rev. June 2022); see also Doc. 8 at 16 in ECF (Pl’s

handwritten rendering of that directive which he inserted into the same

version of the form). The form goes on to state that the inmate should

Page 4 of 12

“[a]ttach additional pages as necessary to list all cases.” Compl.

Form at 10, 12; Doc. 8 at 18, 21 in ECF. 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.

Compl. Form at 12; Doc. 8 at 21 in ECF.

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-

right complaint form and to complete the form according to its

instructions.

Page 5 of 12

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. 8 at 18–24 in ECF. 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?

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 17–18. 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.

Plaintiff responded “Yes” to Question VIII(A), and disclosed the

following five cases he filed in federal court:

● Chambers v. Molter, No. 3:25-cv-8-LC-HTC (N.D. Fla.) (civil-

rights action);

● Chambers v. Nicolas, No. 3:24-cv-212-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla.)

(civil-rights action);

Page 6 of 12

● Chambers v. Butler, No. 3:23-cv-10285-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.)

(civil-rights action);

● Chambers v. Dade Cnty. Jail, No. 1:05-cv-21467-JEM (S.D.

Fla.) (civil-rights action); and

● Chambers v. State of Florida, No. 1:04-cv-21418-FAM (S.D.

Fla.) (mandamus action);

Doc. 8 at 17, 19.1 Plaintiff disclosed no other cases in response to Question

VIII(A). Plaintiff responded “No” to Question VIII(B) and disclosed no

cases in response to that question. Id. at 18.

Plaintiff responded “Yes” to Question VIII(C), and disclosed fifteen

cases he filed in state court. Id. at 18, 20–22. Plaintiff disclosed no other

cases.

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 21–23. Thus, Plaintiff has in

effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, he had not filed any

1 Plaintiff filed the two Southern District cases under the name “Keon

Chambers,” one of his many aliases. See Doc. 8 at 2; see also

https://pubapps.fdc.myflorida.com/offenderSearch/detail.aspx?Page=Det

ail&DCNumber=187933&TypeSearch=AI.

Page 7 of 12

other lawsuit in federal court that was dismissed prior to service or for

failure to state a claim, or that related to the conditions of Plaintiff’s

confinement.

C. Plaintiff’s Omission

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the undersigned takes

judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff filed his complaint in this case,

Plaintiff had filed at least one additional case in federal court that the

complaint form required him to disclose.2 On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff

filed a civil-rights lawsuit in the Northern District of Florida against the

FDC and eight prison officials at the Santa Rosa Correctional Institution.

See Chambers v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:21-cv-677-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla. Apr.

16, 2021). That lawsuit related to the conditions of Plaintiff’s

confinement. The court dismissed No. 3:21-cv-677 on January 27, 2022,

for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See Chambers

v. Santiago, No. 3:21-cv-677-MCR-HTC, 2021 WL 6753554 (N.D. Fla.

Nov. 9, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Chambers v.

2 By confining this discussion to only one case, the undersigned does not

suggest that it is the only additional case Plaintiff failed to disclose.

Page 8 of 12

Dep’t of Corr., 2022 WL 267797 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2022). This case bears

Plaintiff’s name and DC# (187933).

The foregoing case was responsive to Questions VIII(A) and (C) on

the complaint form because it was a lawsuit Plaintiff filed in federal court

that (1) was dismissed for failure to state a claim and prior to service,

and (2) related to the conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement. Plaintiff’s

failure to disclose the foregoing case violates the complaint form’s explicit

instructions and Plaintiff’s duty of candor to the District Court.

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.

Page 9 of 12

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, Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose his

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 civil cases he filed prior to the complaint in this

case. See Compl. Form at 8. Plaintiff also knew that the penalty for failing

to disclose the prior lawsuit was dismissal of this case. Id.; see also N.D.

Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Plaintiff knew this not only from the directive on the

complaint form, but also because one of Plaintiff’s prior cases in this

district court was dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose

his prior litigation. See Chambers v. Nicolas, No. 3:24-cv-212-MCR-HTC,

Doc. 18 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2024).

A penalty is warranted both to deter Plaintiff from such conduct

and to deter others from similar misrepresentations and omissions. An

appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s violation of the Local Rules by failing

Page 10 of 12

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.”).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully

RECOMMENDS that the District Court:

1. DISMISS this case without prejudice pursuant to the Court’s

inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the Local Rules,

based on Plaintiff’s 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 20th day of February, 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

matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Objections to

these proposed findings and recommendations must be

Page 11 of 12

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 12 of 12