LEWINSON v. BURDETT

Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
STANFORD D. LEWINSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv1817-TKW-HTC
BURDETT,
Defendant.
________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Stanford D. Lewinson, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, initiated this action by filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating
to a use of force incident that occurred on August 18, 2025. 	Doc. 1. 	Defendant
Burdett has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for Lewinson’s failure to
truthfully disclose his litigation history as required on the Court’s complaint form.
Doc. 31. Lewinson responded in opposition. Doc. 34. Upon review of the parties’
submissions and the relevant law, the undersigned finds Burdett’s motion should be
GRANTED and Lewinson’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for his failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
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.
Case 3:25-cv-01817-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
Case No. 3:25cv1817-TKW-HTC
5.7(A). Section VIII of the form requires litigants to disclose specific prior litigation
history. 	Section VIII.A required Lewinson to disclose his prior litigation history
pertaining to “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
12. Section VIII.B required him to disclose “any other lawsuits or appeals in state
or federal court dealing with the same fact or issue involved in this case.” Id. at 13
(emphasis in original). 	And Section VIII.C required him to disclose “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. 	(emphasis
in original). 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.” Id. at 11 (emphasis in original).
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.
Despite signing the amended complaint under “penalty of perjury, that all of
the information … included on or with [the] form, including [his] litigation history,
is true and correct,” (Doc. 1 at 18-19), Lewinson did not truthfully disclose his
litigation history. 	In fact, Lewinson did not disclose any cases in the litigation
history section. 	But based on Burdett’s motion to dismiss and an independent
review, the undersigned takes judicial notice that Lewinson failed to include at least
Case 3:25-cv-01817-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
Case No. 3:25cv1817-TKW-HTC
the following three cases: (1) Lewinson v. State of Florida, Case No. 2016-735 (Fla.
5th DCA 2016) (challenging Lewinson’s criminal conviction); (2) Lewinson v. State
of Florida, Case No. 2017-2940 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (appealing the state court’s
August 2017 resentencing); and (3) Lewinson v. State of Florida, Case No. 2025-
1777 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (appealing the state court’s denial of postconviction
relief). 	These cases were filed before the instant complaint and should have been
disclosed under Section VIII.C.
Lewinson admits he failed to disclose “at least (5) appeals in the state court
between 2014 and 2021” but argues dismissal is not appropriate for several reasons,
none of which are persuasive. 	Doc. 34. 	First, Lewinson argues that “appointed
counsel was the one who filed those appeals,” therefore “he answered the questions
no because he never filed a lawsuit before.” 	Doc. 34 at 1 (emphasis in original).
This argument is disingenuous. As an initial matter, the state court docket indicates
Case No. 2025-1777 was a pro se filing appealing the denial of a 3.850 motion,
which is a motion incarcerated individuals may file to challenge their judgment or
sentence. 	See 	Osceola 	County 	Case. 	No. 	2014 	CF 	4196, 	Doc. 	7/28/2025
(“Acknowledgement of [Fla. 6th DCA, Case No. 2025-1777] with Order Regarding
Brief”); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. 	Therefore, Lewinson—not his court-appointed
counsel—was the one who filed at least one of the appeals he should have disclosed
on the form.
Case 3:25-cv-01817-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 06/08/26 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
Case No. 3:25cv1817-TKW-HTC
Regardless, Lewinson’s position that he did not believe he needed to disclose
those cases filed by counsel is simply untenable. 	The questions do not make that
distinction. Lawyers act only behalf of their clients. 	See Maracich v. Spears, 570
U.S. 48, 61 (2013) (“It is no less true than trite that lawyers must operate in a three-
fold capacity, as self-employed businessmen as it were, as trusted agents of their
clients, and as assistants to the court in search of a just solution to disputes.”). And
the form directed Lewinson to “err on the side of caution.” 	Doc. 1 at 11. 	Thus,
Lewinson’s 	alleged 	“misunderstanding” 	of 	the 	form 	does 	not 	“excuse 	the
misrepresentation” or make “dismissal without prejudice” any less appropriate.
Redmon v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 414 F. App’x 221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011)
(affirming district court’s dismissal based on failure to disclose where plaintiff
objected 	that 	he 	“misunderstood” 	the 	form); 	Merritt 	v. 	Dep't 	of 	Corr., 	No.
5:19cv144/TKW/MJF, 2020 WL 6703794, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2020) (rejecting
inmate’s argument that he should be allowed to amend his complaint to disclose his
litigation history where his failure to do so was allegedly based on an “honest
mistake”).
Second, Lewinson argues that “if by chance [he] answered the question wrong
it wasn’t intentionally it was only a lack of education and knowledge.” Doc. 34 at
2. 	Whether Lewinson’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history was
intentional is irrelevant. See Jenkins v. Hutcheson, 708 F. App’x 647, 648-49 (11th
Case 3:25-cv-01817-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 06/08/26 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
Case No. 3:25cv1817-TKW-HTC
Cir. 2018) (affirming district court’s sanction of dismissal because the plaintiff’s
failure to disclose prior lawsuits, even though unintentional, frustrated district
court’s ability to perform its screening function under the PLRA); Lebarr v. Fla.
Dep’t of Corr., Case No. 5:21cv233-TKW-MJF, 2022 WL 2438357, at *1 (N.D. Fla.
July 5, 2022) (rejecting argument that a failure to disclose was a “simple mistake”
because even if true, “a sanction is warranted to deter Plaintiff and others from
carelessly filling out the civil rights complaint form, and under the circumstances,
dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate sanction.”).
If the Court excused a prisoner’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation
history based on a conclusory allegation of “lack of education and knowledge,”
almost all prisoners would use that excuse to avoid the consequences of their
misrepresentations. To the extent Lewinson is unsure of the cases he has filed, he
can obtain a listing of those cases from the clerks of court. See Burrell v. Warden I,
857 F. App’x 624, 624-25 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s dismissal for
failure to disclose even though prisoner claimed he lacked memory of an omitted
lawsuit); Sheffield v. Brown, Case No. 5:23cv238/TKW/MJF, 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 … .”).
The Court has the inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to disclose
even a single case. 	See McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2025)
Case 3:25-cv-01817-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 06/08/26 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
Case No. 3:25cv1817-TKW-HTC
(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 Lewinson’s failure to truthfully disclose his
litigation history is to dismiss this case without prejudice. See Bratton v. Sec’y Dep’t
of Corr., 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
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
Case 3:25-cv-01817-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 06/08/26 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
Case No. 3:25cv1817-TKW-HTC
effective sanction, the form would serve little purpose.” 	Rodriguez v. Inch, No.
4:19cv191/RH/HTC, Doc. 52 (N.D. Fla. June 7, 2020).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 31) be GRANTED and this case
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Lewinson’s failure to truthfully
disclose his litigation history.
2. 	The clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 8 th day of June, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) 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.
Case 3:25-cv-01817-TKW-HTC Document 36 Filed 06/08/26 Page 7 of 7