HANKINS v. JOHNSON

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
DAVID JOEL HANKINS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv562-TKW-HTC
GERALD JOHNSON,
Defendant.
_______________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff David Joel Hankins, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendant Gerald Johnson
used 	excessive 	force 	against 	him 	while 	he 	was 	incarcerated 	at 	Santa 	Rosa
Correctional Institution. 	Doc. 1. 	On October 6, 2025, Johnson filed a Motion to
Dismiss, asserting Hankins failed to truthfully disclose his litigation history. Doc.
20 at 6. On November 4, the Court issued an order granting Hankins’s motion for
an extension of time to file a response to Johnson’s Motion to Dismiss and warning
Hankins the Court may grant Johnson’s motion by default if Hankins failed to file a
response. 	Doc. 29. 	To date, Hankins has not filed a response. 	Upon review and
consideration, the undersigned finds the case should be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE because Hankins failed to truthfully disclose his litigation history on
the complaint form.
Case 3:25-cv-00562-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
Case No. 3:25cv562-TKW-HTC
This Court’s Local Rules require prisoners and pro se litigants to use the
Court’s complaint form when filing a civil rights complaint. 	See N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
5.7(A). Section VIII of the Court’s approved complaint form requires prisoners to
disclose their prior litigation history. 	The complaint form warns plaintiffs 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.”
Doc. 1 at 14. Moreover, the complaint form advises plaintiffs to “err on the side of
caution” if they are uncertain about whether a case should be identified. Id.
Section VIII.C asks Hankins if he has filed “any other lawsuit, habeas corpus
petition, or appeal in state or federal court either challenging [his] conviction or
relating to the conditions of [his] confinement?” Id. at 16. Hankins answered “N/A”
and did not identify any cases. Id. at 16-18. However, the undersigned takes judicial
notice that Hankins filed at least the following cases, which relate to the conditions
of his confinement or challenge his conviction: David Hankins v. State of Florida,
Case No. 2D2011-5847 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 20, 2012); David Hankins v. Fla.
Dep’t Corr., Case No. 2106-CA-1974 (Fla. Leon County Ct. Nov. 14, 2016); and
David Hankins v. Sec. Fla. Dep’t Corr., Case. No 2015-CA-123 (Fla. Suwannee
County Ct.).1 Despite Hankins’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history,
1 In Johnson’s motion, he identified four (4) cases Hankins failed to file. However, one of those
cases, habeas appeal 2D2011-4365, involves a different plaintiff. See Thomas R. Horton v. Grady
Judd, 	Sheriff, 	Case 	No. 	2011-4365 	(Fla. 	Dist. 	Ct. 	App. 	Feb. 	22, 	2012) 	(see
Case 3:25-cv-00562-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Case No. 3:25cv562-TKW-HTC
Hankins signed the complaint “under penalty of perjury, that all of the information
… included on or with the [complaint] form, including [his] litigation history, is true
and correct.” Doc. 1 at 18.
The Court has the inherent power to dismiss based on a failure to disclose
even a single case. 	See McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2025)
(recognizing court’s inherent authority to dismiss an action for failure to truthfully
disclose litigation history when requested to do so on complaint form). It also has
the inherent power to dismiss based on a failure to comply with orders of the Court,
this Court’s local rules, or for abusing the judicial process. Id. at 1308; see also N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (“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.”).
Thus, an appropriate sanction for Hankins’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 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
https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/8f454fb9-4c7f-43df-856b-ab373e71c27f/case/868a6bfd-
a19e-44f7-b736-5f095074f860).
Case 3:25-cv-00562-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
Case No. 3:25cv562-TKW-HTC
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.”). “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). Because this is a dismissal
without prejudice, Hankins may initiate a new suit on these claims, provided he does
so within the statute of limitations period.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Johnson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) be GRANTED.
2. 	This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under this Court’s
inherent power for Hankins’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history.
3. 	The clerk be directed to close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 25 th day of November 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00562-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
Case No. 3:25cv562-TKW-HTC
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
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
and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all
other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-00562-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 11/25/25 Page 5 of 5