HENSARLING v. MELTON et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
RICHARD EARL HENSARLING, JR,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1719-TKW-HTC
MALIK MELTON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 5). No objections were filed, but Plaintiff did file a
document titled “Premission [sic] to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” (Doc. 6) in which
he took issue with the magistrate judge’s determination that he did not truthfully
disclose his litigation history.1
The Court will treat Plaintiff’s post-R&R filing as an objection to the R&R
and review the issue that it raised de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s
determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully
1 This filing also expressed confusion about the status of the case because Plaintiff received
the R&R and the order authorizing him to proceed in forma pauperis the same day, but the Court
sees no need for clarification because the R&R clearly advised Plaintiff of his right to file
objections to the R&R and the timeframe for doing so.
Case 3:26-cv-01719-TKW-HTC Document 7 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
disclose his litigation history. See McNair v. Johnson, 141 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th
Cir. 2025).
The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s assertion in his post-R&R filing that he
did not “lie” about his litigation history because he “duly * noted that he was
uncertain – unaware” of his prior cases, but he made no such representation on the
complaint form. And even if he had, that would not save this case from dismissal
because it is not enough for Plaintiff to claim that he is “uncertain – unaware” of the
prior cases that he filed because he had an obligation to keep at least the case
numbers for his prior cases. If, for whatever reason, Plaintiff did not have that
information, he should have gotten it from the appropriate clerk’s offices before
filing a new suit. See Gomez v. Key, 2024 WL 3014629, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 14,
2024) (citing Torres v. Geo Grp. Inc., 2021 WL 75764, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 8,
2021)).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference
in this Order.
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under the Court’s inherent
authority based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history.
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close
the case file.
Case 3:26-cv-01719-TKW-HTC Document 7 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2026.
__________________________________
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01719-TKW-HTC Document 7 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 3