FRAZIER v. BISH et al

Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
FREDRICK FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-195-MW/MJF
DEPUTY BISH, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose fully
and accurately his litigation history, the District Court should dismiss
this case without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Florida inmate currently confined at the Wakulla
Correctional Institution. Plaintiff’s inmate number is N05936.
On April 18, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this civil action against eight
employees of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department. Doc. 1. On July
23, 2025, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. Doc. 12 at 21.
Plaintiff alleges that on July 8, 2023, three Madison County Sheriff
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 10

Page 2 of 10
Deputies—Dennis, Terry, and Bish—used excessive force when arresting
Plaintiff. Doc. 12 at 8–13, 15. He asserts that three other Madison County
Sheriff employees—Ray, Land, and Paiva—watched the excessive force
and failed to intervene or stop it. Id. at 12, 15. Plaintiff alleges that
Dennis and Captain Whitefield falsified the police report to cover up the
alleged misconduct. Id. at 14–15.
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Screening of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
“Although a pro se litigant’s filings are construed liberally, they
must comply with procedural rules.” McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301,
1307 (11th Cir. 2025) (citations omitted). “A district court has discretion
to adopt local rules that are necessary to carry out the conduct of its
business.” Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 645 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. §
2071; Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a). “[L]ocal rules generally reflect the courts’
traditional ‘authority to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d
1253, 1267–68 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc. v.
Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 172–73 (1989)).
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 10

Page 3 of 10
Rule 5.7(A) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court of
the Northern District of Florida instructs a pro se prisoner bringing suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to use the court’s standardized civil-rights
complaint form:
A party not represented by an attorney must file any of
these only on a form available without charge from the Clerk
or on the District’s website: a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or a
complaint in a civil-rights case. A case is a civil-rights case if
it asserts a claim under the United States Constitution or a
statute creating individual rights, including, for example, 42
U.S.C. § 1983 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court need
not—and ordinarily will not—consider a petition, motion, or
complaint that is not filed on the proper form.
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A).
The complaint form, in turn, instructs the inmate to disclose his
litigation 	history. 	In 	particular, 	under 	a 	heading 	titled 	“PRIOR
LITIGATION,” the form provides the following directive:
This section requires you to identify your prior
litigation history. Be advised 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. You should err on
the side of caution if you are uncertain whether a case
should be identified.
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 10

Page 4 of 10
Compl. Form at 8. The form goes on to state that the inmate should
“[a]ttach additional pages as necessary to list all cases.” Id. at 12.
Separately, 	the 	form 	requires 	the 	inmate 	to 	provide 	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.
Id.
Local Rule 41.1 describes the consequences of a litigant’s failure to
comply with the applicable court rules, and it expressly warns that
dismissal is a possible sanction:
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.
N.D. Fla. R. 41.1.
In short, Plaintiff is required to complete the standardized civil-
rights 	complaint 	form 	and 	to 	complete 	the 	form 	according 	to 	its
instructions.
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 10

Page 5 of 10
B. 	Plaintiff’s Responses to Questions on the Complaint Form
Plaintiff 	provided 	answers 	to 	Section 	VIII 	of 	the 	civil 	rights
complaint form which requires Plaintiff to disclose his litigation history.
Doc. 12 at 17–20. The complaint form asks three questions:
A. Have you 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?
B. Have you filed other lawsuits or appeals in 	state 	or
federal court dealing with the same facts or issue involved
in this case?
C. 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?
Id. at 17–18. Additionally, the complaint form instructs that if the answer
is “yes” to any of these questions, then the plaintiff must disclose all
responsive cases. Id. at 18, 20.
Plaintiff responded “Yes” to Question B and disclosed only one case:
Frazier v. Gaston, No. 4:07-cv-6 (N.D. Fla.).
Plaintiff responded, “No” to Questions A and C and did not disclose
any cases. Id. at 17–20.
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 5 of 10

Page 6 of 10
At the end of the civil rights complaint form, Plaintiff signed his
name after certifying: “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.” Id. at 20–21. Thus, Plaintiff has in
effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, he never filed any
appeal challenging his underlying conviction in either a state or federal
court.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Omission
The undersigned takes judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff
filed his complaint and his amended complaint in this case, Plaintiff had
filed an appeal that Plaintiff was required to disclose but did not.1
On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed an appeal with the First District
Court of Appeal challenging his conviction in Leon County Case No. 17-
2022CF2869A. Frazier v. Florida, No. 1D2023-2561 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct.
App.). On February 28, 2025, the Court of Appeals affirmed Plaintiff’s
conviction. Frazier v. State, 403 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2025).
1 In Plaintiff’s original complaint, Plaintiff responded “No” to each of the
three questions on the complaint form and did not disclose any cases.
Doc. 1 at 18–21.
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 6 of 10

Page 7 of 10
This appeal was responsive to Question C on the complaint form
because it challenged Plaintiff’s conviction. By failing to disclose this
appeal, Plaintiff violated the complaint form’s explicit instructions and
Plaintiff’s duty of candor to the District Court. See Kendrick v. Sec’y, Fla.
Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (11th Cir. July 1,
2022) (noting that pro se litigants “owe the same duty of candor to the
court as imposed on any other litigant”).
D. 	The Appropriate Sanction Is Dismissal Without Prejudice
“[A] district court may . . . dismiss a case under its inherent
authority, which it possesses as a means of managing its own docket so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” McNair,
143 F.4th at 1306 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
When a complaint form requires a plaintiff to list his litigation
history, and the plaintiff’s statements are made under penalty of perjury,
a 	plaintiff’s 	affirmative 	misrepresentation 	regarding 	his 	litigation
history warrants dismissal of the case under the district court’s inherent
authority 	to 	manage 	its 	docket 	and 	enforce 	applicable 	local 	rules.
McNair, 143 F. 4th at 1308; Id. at 1306 (noting a district court’s “inherent
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 7 of 10

Page 8 of 10
authority to dismiss [a] complaint without prejudice as a sanction for [the
plaintiff’s] failure to disclose his full litigation history as required by the
standard inmate complaint form.”).
Here, Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by twice failing to disclose
his entire litigation history, as required by the standard complaint form.
Plaintiff knew from reaching the complaint form that he was required to
disclose all appeals challenging his conviction filed in state court. Doc. 12
at 16, 18–19; see Doc. 1 at 16, 20–21. Plaintiff also knew that the penalty
for failing to disclose all prior appeals was dismissal of this case. Doc. 12
at 16; Doc. 1 at 16; see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1.
A penalty is warranted both to deter Plaintiff from such conduct
and to deter others from similar misrepresentations and omissions. An
appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s violation of the Local Rules by failing
to comply with the complaint form’s explicit instructions is to dismiss this
case without prejudice.2 McNair, 143 F.4th at 1308; see also id. at n.4
2 Because Plaintiff alleges that the incidents giving rise to his claims
occurred on July 8, 2023, Florida’s four-year statute of limitations likely
would not preclude Plaintiff from refiling this action. Shelton v. Rohrs,
406 F. App’x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010).
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 8 of 10

Page 9 of 10
(“[A] dismissal without prejudice doesn’t depend on a finding of bad faith,
and can follow from unintentional or merely negligent conduct.”).
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS 	this 	case 	without 	prejudice—pursuant 	to 	the
District Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the
Local Rules—based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the complaint
form’s explicit instructions and failure to truthfully disclose his litigation
history.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 19th day of March 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 9 of 10

Page 10 of 10
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. A party must serve a copy of any
objections on all other parties. A party who fails to
object to this 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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties also are
advised 	that 	if 	they 	dispute 	the 	accuracy 	of 	any
judicially-noticed fact, or if they otherwise wish to be
heard on the propriety of the District Court taking
judicial notice of that fact, they must raise this issue in
an objection to this report and recommendation.
Case 4:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 03/19/26 Page 10 of 10