LEE v. SCHMELZLE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
ROBERT SINCLAIR LEE,
FDOC #T15204,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2037/LC/ZCB
M. SCHMELZLE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, 	a 	prisoner of the 	Florida 	Department 	of Corrections
(FDOC) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(Doc. 1). 	Having performed its
screening obligation under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a)-(b), the
Court 	believes 	dismissal 	is 	warranted 	because 	Plaintiff 	has 	not
accurately disclosed his litigation history despite being required to do so.
The Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida require pro se
prisoners in civil rights cases to file such cases using the Court-approved
complaint form. 	See 	N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A). 	The complaint form
requires the disclosure of a prisoner’s litigation history. 	The form must
be signed under penalty of perjury. 	The Eleventh Circuit has held that
a prisoner’s case may be dismissed without prejudice for failing to
Case 3:25-cv-02037-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 9

2
accurately disclose litigation history on the complaint form. 	See McNair
v. 	Johnson, 	143 	F.4th 	1301, 	1307-08 	(11th 	Cir. 	2025) 	(affirming
“[d]ismissal without prejudice [as] an appropriate exercise of the district
court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the local
rules” where the plaintiff “violated the local rules by failing to disclose
his full litigation history, as required by the duly adopted standard
complaint form”).1 	Dismissal is appropriate, even if the prisoner claims
that a misunderstanding caused his failure to accurately disclose his
litigation history. See Redmon v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 414 F. App’x
221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal for failure to disclose
1 There are a lot of unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases that say the same
thing. See, e.g., Allen v. Santiago, No. 22-11946, 2023 WL 5745494, at *1
(11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2023) (affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case
because he failed to disclose all of his relevant prior litigation); Kendrick
v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (11th
Cir. July 1, 2022) (stating that “[a] plaintiff’s bad-faith litigiousness or
manipulative tactics, which include lying about one’s litigation history,
warrant[s] dismissal”); Jones v. Szalai, 778 F. App’x 847, 848 (11th Cir.
2019) (affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case as an appropriate
sanction for plaintiff’s failing to disclose a prior case on the complaint
form); Strickland v. United States, 739 F. App’x 587, 588 (11th Cir. 2018)
(affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case because he misrepresented
the number of cases he had previously filed in the district court); Wynn
v. Postal Serv., 735 F. App’x 704, 705 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal
of pro se plaintiff’s case after he failed to disclose a habeas action because
the habeas action fell “squarely within the complaint form’s disclosure
requirements”).
Case 3:25-cv-02037-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 9

3
litigation history and concluding that prisoner’s failure was not excused
by his claimed misunderstanding of the form).
Here, the complaint form required Plaintiff to disclose information
regarding prior civil cases he had filed in state and federal courts. (Doc.
1 at 18-23). 	Question A of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if
he “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?” (Id. at 19). Plaintiff answered “No” in response to Question
A and disclosed no cases. (Id.).
Question B of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if he had
“filed other lawsuits or appeals in state or federal court dealing with the
same facts or issue involved in this case?” (Id. at 20). Plaintiff answered
“Yes” in response to Question B and disclosed two cases (id.):
• 	Case No. 3:20-cv-5462 (N.D. Fla.);
• 	Case No. 3:24-cv-321 (N.D. Fla.);
Question C of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if he had
“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?” (Doc. 1 at 20). Plaintiff answered “Yes”
in response to Question C and disclosed three cases (id. at 20-21):
Case 3:25-cv-02037-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 9

4
• 	Case No. 3:20-cv-5462 (N.D. Fla.);
• 	Case No. 3:24-cv-321 (N.D. Fla.);
• 	Case No. 06-CF-22038 (Hillsborough Cnty. Cir. Ct.).
At the end of the complaint form, Plaintiff signed his name after
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.” (Doc. 1 at 22-23).
Plaintiff, 	therefore, 	certified 	that—at 	the 	time 	he 	filed 	his
complaint on October 15, 2025—he had fully disclosed his litigation
history.
The 	Court 	has 	researched 	Plaintiff’s 	litigation 	history 	and
discovered that he failed to accurately disclose it. According to Westlaw
and online state court dockets, Plaintiff filed the following undisclosed
actions before filing his complaint:2
• 	Lee v. State, No. 2D18-3147, 279 So.3d 96 (Table), 2019 WL 2373592
(Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (postconviction appeal in Plaintiff’s Fla. R.
Crim. P. 3.800 proceedings to vacate sentence in 06-CF-22038
2 Plaintiff is identified by his name “Robert Sinclair Lee” and his inmate
number “T15204” in this case style of this appellate opinion. 	Plaintiff
similarly identifies himself here. (Doc. 1 at 1).
Case 3:25-cv-02037-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 9

5
(Hillsborough Cnty. Cir. Ct.));
• 	Lee v. State, No. 2D25-508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) (postconviction
appeal in Plaintiff’s Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800 proceedings to vacate
sentence in 06-CF-22038 (Hillsborough Cnty. Cir. Ct.)).3
Because these actions are “appeal[s] in state . . . court either challenging
[Plaintiff’s] conviction or relating to the conditions of [his] confinement[,]”
they should have been disclosed in response to Question C. (Doc. 1 at 20).
But Plaintiff failed to reference them anywhere in his complaint.
The prior litigation portion of the complaint form serves important
purposes. First, it permits efficient consideration of whether the prisoner
is entitled to pursue the current action under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision. 	Second, it allows the Court to
determine 	whether 	an 	action 	is 	related 	to, 	or otherwise 	should 	be
considered in conjunction with, another lawsuit. 	Third, it enables the
Court to determine whether any issues raised in the current action have
been previously decided by another judge. These purposes are thwarted,
and the efficiency of the judicial system diminished, when a prisoner
misstates his litigation history on the complaint form.
3 See Docs. 85 to 94, Case No. 06-CF-22038 (Hillsborough Cnty. Cir. Ct.).
Case 3:25-cv-02037-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 Page 5 of 9

6
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from following the
rules, including the requirement that litigants be truthful with the Court.
See Kendrick v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425,
at *3 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022) (stating that pro se litigants “owe the same
duty of candor to the court as imposed on any other litigant”). 	The
undersigned agrees with another judge on this Court who stated the
following: “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. 	And word does get around the prisons.” 	Rodriguez
v. Inch, No. 4:19cv191, 2020 WL 3050231, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 7, 2020)
(Hinkle, J.); see also Strickland, 739 F. App’x at 588 (“A sanction less
than dismissal would signal that a failure to disclose filings is an
infraction without consequence. 	It would invite other prisoners to omit
their litigation history, thus draining the judicial system’s time and
resources.”).4
4 Plaintiff failure to obtain a complete copy of his appellate records does
not excuse his failure to disclose his full litigation history. 	See Bashir v.
Meherg, No. 5:22cv142, 2022 WL 4471965, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2022)
(Wetherell, J.) (“The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that he
Case 3:25-cv-02037-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 Page 6 of 9

7
As detailed above, Plaintiff misstated his prior litigation history on
the complaint form that the Local Rules required him to use. Consistent
with the Eleventh Circuit precedent previously cited, this matter should
be dismissed without prejudice.5 	See McNair, 143 F.4th at 1307-08
(affirming dismissal without prejudice where pro se prisoner failed to
accurately 	disclose 	his 	litigation 	history 	as 	required 	by 	the 	Court-
approved complaint form and the Local Rules); Butler v. Mathis, No. 5:23-
CV-240-TKW-MJF, 2025 WL 1298750, at *2-4 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2025)
(granting motion to dismiss for failure to disclose full litigation history
does not have access to PACER to research his prior cases and, as a
result, he had to rely on his memory to recall his litigation history. Even
if that is true, it does not excuse Plaintiff’s untruthful answers to the
litigation history questions on the civil rights complaint form because,
like 	every 	other 	inmate, 	Plaintiff 	has 	an 	obligation 	to 	maintain
information (or at least a list of case numbers) for all of his prior cases,
and if he does not have that information, he can (and should) request it
from the appropriate clerks’ offices before filing a new case.”) (emphasis
added and internal citations omitted).
5 Providing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose
the previous lawsuit would be an inadequate sanction. See Young v. Sec’y
for Dep’t of Corr., 380 F. App’x 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that
district court did not abuse its discretion by not providing a prisoner with
an opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose lawsuits that should
have been disclosed initially); see also Rodriguez, 2020 WL 3050231, at
*1 (stating that “dismissal without prejudice is not too severe a sanction”
for failing to accurately disclose litigation history).
Case 3:25-cv-02037-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 Page 7 of 9

8
where prisoner omitted two postconviction appeals under Fla. R. Crim.
P. 3.800 and 3.850, respectively), adopted, 2025 WL 1296174 (N.D. Fla.
May 5, 2025); White v. Quinn, No. 3:25cv955-LC-HTC, 2025 WL 2198610,
at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2025) (dismissing prisoner’s civil rights complaint
without prejudice under the Court’s “inherent power for [the prisoner’s]
failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history”); see also N.D. Fla. Loc.
R. 5.7(A) (requiring pro se parties to file civil rights complaints using a
Court-approved form); N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (allowing the Court to
dismiss claims for a party’s failure to comply with an applicable rule or
order).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED without prejudice under the
Court’s inherent power to manage its docket and enforce the Local Rules,
based on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 22nd day of December 2025.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02037-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 Page 8 of 9

9
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 the objections on 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 	unobjected-to 	factual 	and 	legal
conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-02037-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 Page 9 of 9