HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

VICTOR WADE HICKS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:26-cv-46-TKW-MJF

JOSEPH FLOYD, et al.,

Defendants.

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Victor W. Hicks is an inmate of the Florida Department of

Corrections (“FDC”) housed at the Santa Rosa Correctional Institution.

Hicks’s FDC inmate number is 956645. Doc. 1 at 1, 2.

Page 1 of 10

Hicks initiated this civil action on February 9, 2026, by filing a

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Hicks is suing four prison

officials of the Jackson Correctional Institution.

DISCUSSION

A. Screening of Hicks’s 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. 9, 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)).

Page 2 of 10

Rule 5.7(A) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court

for 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

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.

Page 3 of 10

Compl. Form at 8. The form goes on to state that the inmate should

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

Form at 10, 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.

Compl. Form at 12.

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. N.D. Fla. R. 41.1.

In short, Hicks is required to complete the standardized civil-rights

complaint form and to complete the form according to its instructions.

B. Hicks’s Responses to Questions on the Complaint Form

Hicks provided answers to Section VIII of the complaint form which

requires Hicks to disclose his litigation history. Doc. 1 at 9–12. 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?

Page 4 of 10

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 9–10. 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.

Hicks responded “Yes” to Question VIII(A), and disclosed one case

he filed in federal court: Hicks v. Hernando Cnty. Det. Ctr., No. 8:24-cv-

1520-SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla. 2024). See Doc. 1 at 9. Hicks filed Case No.

8:24-cv-1520 on June 24, 2024, under his Hernando County inmate

number (2300188603). See No. 8:24-cv-1520, Doc. 1 (M.D. Fla. June 24,

2024). That case was dismissed on July 1, 2024, for failure to state a claim

on which relief can be granted. See No. 8:24-cv-1520, Doc. 3 (M.D. Fla.

July 1, 2024). Hicks disclosed no other cases in response to Question

VIII(A).

Hicks responded “No” to Questions VIII(B) and (C) of the form, and

disclosed no cases in response to those questions. Doc. 1 at 10–11.

Page 5 of 10

At the end of the civil rights complaint form, Hicks 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 12–13. Thus, Hicks has in

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

other lawsuit or habeas corpus petition that challenged his conviction or

related to the conditions of his confinement.

C. Hicks’s Omissions

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the undersigned takes

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

Hicks had filed at least two additional cases in federal court that the

complaint form required him to disclose. Specifically, on July 8, 2024,

Hicks, while confined at the Hernando County Detention Center, filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus “pursuant to 28 Appendix U.S.C. Sec.

21.” See Hicks v. Warden, Hernando Cnty. Det. Ctr., No. 8:24-cv-1602-

SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2024). Hicks’s initial and amended petitions

challenged the sheriff’s imposition and collection of booking and

subsistence fees at the detention center. The district court for the Middle

Page 6 of 10

District of Florida denied the petition on July 18, 2024. See No. 8:24-cv-

1602, Doc. 3 at 2 (M.D. Fla. July 18, 2024). Hicks later filed a notice of

inquiry from the FDC’s Central Florida Reception Center requesting the

status of his petitions. See No. 8:24-cv-1602, Doc. 6. On July 31, 2024, the

clerk of the court for the Middle District mailed Hicks a copy of the docket

sheet. Id. (docket text). The foregoing case bears Hicks’s name and DC#

(956645).

In addition, on December 8, 2017, Hicks filed a habeas corpus

petition in the Middle District of Florida challenging his 2017 conviction

for lewd or lascivious molestation in Orange County Circuit Court Case

No. 2013-CF-16529. See Hicks v. State of Florida, No. 6:17-cv-2108 (M.D.

Fla. Dec. 8, 2017). The district court for the Middle District of Florida

denied the petition and dismissed the case on December 13, 2017. See No.

6:17-cv-2108, Doc. 3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2017). The foregoing case bears

Hicks’s name and DC# (956645).

The foregoing two cases are responsive to Question VIII(C) on the

complaint form because they are lawsuits or habeas corpus petitions

Hicks filed in federal court that challenged his conviction or related to

Page 7 of 10

the conditions of his confinement. Hicks’s failure to disclose the foregoing

cases violates the complaint form’s explicit instructions and Hicks’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.

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.”).

Page 8 of 10

Here, Hicks violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose his

litigation history, as required by the duly adopted standard complaint

form. Hicks knew from reading the complaint form that he was required

to disclose all civil cases and habeas cases he filed prior to the complaint

in this case. See Compl. Form at 8. Hicks also knew that the penalty for

failing to disclose the prior lawsuits was dismissal of this case. Id.; see

also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1.

A penalty is warranted both to deter Hicks from such conduct and

to deter others from similar misrepresentations and omissions. An

appropriate sanction for Hicks’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.”).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully

RECOMMENDS that the District Court:

Page 9 of 10

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 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 24th 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

filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and

recommendation. A party who fails to object to this

R&R 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. If a party disputes the accuracy of any judicially-

noticed fact, or if a party otherwise desires to be heard

on the propriety of the District Court taking judicial

notice of a fact, that party must raise this issue in an

objection to this R&R.

Page 10 of 10