CARTER v. MCKENZIE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
WILLIAM CARTER JR.,
D.O.C # 125691,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:25-cv-95-MCR-MAF
SGT. MCKENZIE,
Defendant.
______________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 on February 25, 2025
by prison mailbox rule. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is proceeding on his amended
complaint, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff alleges his Eighth Amendment rights were
violated when the Defendant, then a correctional officer, directed a group of
inmates to attack Plaintiff and stood by while it happened. On October 28th,
Defendant filed a timely motion to dismiss. ECF No. 36.
Defendant’s motion claims dismissal is required solely because
Plaintiff failed to disclose two state-court appeals of his underlying criminal
conviction on the complaint form. See Id. Because the facts and law are
clear, a response from Plaintiff is not necessary. As discussed below,
Plaintiff’s omission was not malicious or a violation of the local rules.
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 37 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
4:25-cv-95-MCR-MAF
Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied and the case should
proceed on the merits.
I. Standard of Review
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was enacted to curtail
“abusive” and “meritless prisoner suits.” Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 590 U.S --
--, 603, 140 S.Ct. 1721, 1726 (2020). It created “several mechanisms by
which courts can filter out the bad claims and facilitate the consideration of
the good ones.” McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2025)
(internal marks omitted). The Court is required to screen a prisoner-plaintiff’s
complaint against government officials prior to service to determine if the
action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary damages against a defendant immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C § 1915A; see also 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2) (listing the
same dismissal criteria for complaints by litigants proceeding in forma
pauperis). Litigation history becomes relevant because of the “three strikes”
provision of the PLRA, which prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action
without prepaying the filing fee if they have had three or more prior dismissals
under § 1915A or § 1915(e). See 28 U.S.C § 1915(g).
This district, like many others, requires prisoner-plaintiffs to disclose
their litigation history on a sworn court complaint form. N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 37 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
4:25-cv-95-MCR-MAF
5.7(A). Affirmative misrepresentations of that history can be an abuse of the
judicial process and can result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.
E.g., Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 491 F. App’x 129, 132-33 (11th Cir. 2012);
Ealy v. CCA, 2015 WL 9647546, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2015) (collecting
cases). Up until recently, these dismissals were often deemed “malicious”
under § 1915 as a matter of course. See Id. But the Eleventh Circuit now
appears skeptical of this approach. As it pointed out only a few months ago,
the PLRA “doesn’t require [standardized court] forms—or the disclosure of
litigation history…it doesn’t speak to the consequences of a prisoner’s failure
to complete his form accurately.” McNair, 143 F.4th at 1306. (affirming
dismissal without prejudice for failure to disclose complete litigation history
based on the district court’s “inherent authority” to “enforce its orders” and
local rules but declining to address whether it was “malicious” under § 1915).
Defendant requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint “as a sanction for
failure to disclose his litigation history.” ECF No. 36 at 3. Defendant cites
McNair, but also believes Plaintiff’s omission of “at least two (2) legal actions”
warrants the § 1915 label of “malicious.” Id. at 3, 4, 7. Defendant only
identifies one of these cases. Id. at 4 (“To cite only example [sic], Plaintiff
filed an appeal[,] [C]ase No. 5D15-0078 with the Fifth DCA on January 8,
2015. The appeal was closed on February 22, 2017”). Since Defendant failed
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 37 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
4:25-cv-95-MCR-MAF
to provide proper legal citations and case descriptions, the Court conducted
its own independent review. Plaintiff has not filed any other federal civil cases
relating to his conviction or conditions of confinement. Plaintiff has filed two
state criminal appeals, the first a direct appeal of his Marion County criminal
conviction and the second for a denial of a post-conviction 3.850 motion in
the same criminal case. See Carter v. State of Florida, Case No. 5D2012-
4431 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (per curiam affirmed); Carter v. State of Florida,
Case No. 5D2015-0078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (per curiam affirmed), rehrg.
denied (Dec. 29, 2016).
II. Discussion
Plaintiff used the standardized prisoner civil rights complaint form
offered on the United States Courts’ website. See ECF No. 5. This form is
frequently used by prisoners with access to a prison law clerk or a computer
because it can be downloaded as a PDF with typable, fillable fields. It
contains the same general requirements as the Northern District’s form, but
provides slightly different instructions regarding litigation history. Both are
labeled as the “Pro Se 14” form.1
The generic court form Plaintiff used the asks the following question
1 The Northern District’s form can be found online at https://flnd-admin.jdc.ao.dcn/
form/pro-se-civil-rights-complaint-prisoner-ndfl-pro-se-14. The generic form can be found
at https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/forms/complaint-violation-civil-rights-prisoner.
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 37 Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
4:25-cv-95-MCR-MAF
under Section VIII(C): “Have you filed other lawsuits in state or federal court
otherwise relating to the conditions of your imprisonment?” Plaintiff checked
the box for “No.” ECF No. 5 at 12-13. Based on the Court’s independent
review, Plaintiff’s answer is truthful and correct.
In contrast, the Northern District’s form asks the Section VIII(C)
question the following way: “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?” (emphasis
added). It is this language that Defendant attributes to Plaintiff’s “no” answer.
ECF No. 36 at 5. Defendant is incorrect.2
A state criminal appeal is not a “lawsuit…relating to the conditions of
[Plaintiff’s] imprisonment.” There is a better argument that such an appeal
would be included under the Northern District’s Section VIII phrasing of “an
appeal in state…court…challenging [Plaintiff’s] conviction.” But as explained
above, Plaintiff used the standardized court form with the former, more
2 Defendant, through counsel, claims the “complaint form that Plaintiff filed with the Court
(EFC [sic] Doc. 5. pp. 12-13), on page 12, section VIII, letter C states the following
question: C. “Have you filed any other lawsuit, habeas corpus petition, of [sic] appeal in
state of [sic] federal court either challenging your conviction or relating to the conditions
of your confinement?” Plaintiff answered negatively.” ECF No. 36 at 5. The irony that
Defendant misrepresents and misquotes the actual question Plaintiff answered, while
arguing Plaintiff misrepresented his litigation history, is not lost on the Court. Counsel is
reminded of her professional and ethical obligations as a member of the Florida Bar.
Proofreading is also wise for any legal filing.
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 37 Filed 10/29/25 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
4:25-cv-95-MCR-MAF
limited phrasing, and thus had no obligation to disclose any of his state
criminal appeals.3 Even if Plaintiff had used the Northern District’s form,
failing to disclose perfunctory criminal appeals (taken by nearly every
prisoner as a matter of course) could hardly be seen as malicious or a
violation worthy of dismissal. The history section of the form is focused on
civil litigation history and any history of similar cases, for obvious reasons.
Plaintiff was not required to disclose his two state appeals related to
one criminal conviction on the court form he used. The omission was not
malicious or an abuse of the judicial process, did not violate the rules, has
no impact on this case, and does not warrant dismissal.
III. Recommendation
For the reasons discussed, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 36, be DENIED and this action be
REMANDED to the undersigned for further proceedings.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on October 29, 2025.
s/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3 The only exception would be if his criminal appeals dealt “with the same facts or issue
involved in this case.” ECF No. 5 at 12, Section VIII(A). Since this case involves Plaintiff
being attacked in prison, clearly his answer of “no” to that question was truthful.
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 37 Filed 10/29/25 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
4:25-cv-95-MCR-MAF
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party 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(b)(1)(C).
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 37 Filed 10/29/25 Page 7 of 7