RODRIGUEZ v. DIXON et al

Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
FELIX L. RODRIGUEZ,
DOC # T81827,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:25cv396-AW-MAF
RICKY DIXON, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, initiated this case in September 2025.
ECF Nos. 1-5. Plaintiff was eventually granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF Nos. 9-10, and his amended complaint, ECF No. 8, was
reviewed. Finding that Plaintiff had not honestly disclosed his litigation
history, an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 12, was entered on October 16,
2025, requiring Plaintiff to explain why this case should not be dismissed
by November 17, 2025.
Eleven days later, the Clerk of Court received Plaintiff’s notice of
change of address, ECF No. 13, advising that he had been transferred to
Case 4:25-cv-00396-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8
Columbia C.I. Annex. That notice was signed by Plaintiff on October 19th,
and given to prison officials to mail for him on October 20, 2025. 	Id.
Although the docket indicated the Clerk of Court had re-mailed those
Orders to Plaintiff on October 28th, id., another Order was entered to
provide Plaintiff with a courtesy extension of time to respond to the Order to
Show Cause. ECF No. 14. That Order was entered on November 6, 2025.
Id.
Those Orders (ECF Nos. 12 and 14) were then returned to the Court
as undeliverable, ECF No. 15, with a postage stamp which indicates
Plaintiff has been transferred to South Bay Correctional Institution.
Plaintiff’s current location was confirmed via the Department of Corrections’
“Corrections Offender Network” website, and in light of the mail return,
Plaintiff was given another extension of time in which to respond to the
Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff was required to show good
cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to honestly
disclose his litigation history no later than December 22, 2025. ECF No.
16. As of this date, nothing further has been received.
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 8, was submitted on this
Court’s § 1983 civil rights complaint form. That form requires a prisoner to
Case No. 4:25cv396-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00396-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8
disclose all prior cases filed and report any cases which were dismissed for
the reasons listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1915g. The form also advises a prisoner
Plaintiff that he “should err on the side of caution if [he is] uncertain
whether a case should be identified.” 	See ECF No. 8 at 13. The form also
includes a warning - “failure to disclose all prior state and federal cases -
including, but not limited to civil case, habeas cases, and appeals - may
result in the dismissal of this case.” 	Id.
Question A asks whether Plaintiff has had any case “dismissed as
frivolous, as malicious, for failure to state a claim, or prior to service.” 	Id. at
14. Plaintiff checked the “yes” box on the form, and then listed one case,
case number 3:23cv823, which he said was still pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. 	Id. 	That case was still
pending (as of October 2025) and had not been dismissed; thus, it should
not have been listed in response to Question A.
Question C asks whether Plaintiff 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?” 	Id. at 15.
Plaintiff again checked the “yes” box on the form. The complaint form
states: “If ‘Yes,’ identify all lawsuits, petitions, an appeals.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff
Case No. 4:25cv396-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00396-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8
then listed one case, also in Connecticut. 	Id. at 16. Plaintiff said it was
filed on August 21, 2023, and was still pending, but he did not provide other
case information. 	Id.
Plaintiff did not honestly list all of his litigation history. Judicial notice
is taken of the fact that Plaintiff actually filed four cases in Connecticut.
Case number 3:20cv01019, Rodriguez v. McCormick, et al., was filed on
07/21/2020 and dismissed on 06/21/2022 pursuant to a settlement and the
filing of a joint stipulation of dismissal. Plaintiff also filed case number
3:21cv01071, Rodriguez v. McCormick, et al., on 08/06/2021; it was
dismissed on 08/03/2022, also based on a joint stipulation of dismissal.
Case number 3:22cv01261, Rodriguez v. Fox, et al., was filed on
10/13/2022 and was dismissed on 11/14/2022 for failure to comply with a
court order. Plaintiff did not acknowledge filing those three cases; he only
acknowledged the fourth and most recent case, case number 3:23cv823,
which is still pending. 1
1 The Court has confirmed those cases were filed by Plaintiff as his address is in
Florida Department of Corrections and his inmate identification number is T81827. One
case, 3:20cv01019, uses inmate # 433178, which appears to be his number while
incarcerated in Connecticut. That number and address, however, was also used by
Plaintiff in case number 3:21cv01071. Plaintiff was transferred from Connecticut to
Florida during the pendency of that case and he filed a notice of change of address and
inmate number on February 22, 2022. ECF No. 33 of that case. Notably, case
Case No. 4:25cv396-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00396-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8
In addition to those three unreported cases, Plaintiff also filed five
other cases in Florida which he did not disclose. Case number
5:17cv00131 was filed in the Northern District of Florida on 05/03/2017,
and was dismissed on 10/26/2017 for failure to comply with a court order.
Case number 3:17cv00531 was filed in the Middle District of Florida on
05/09/2017 and was dismissed on 05/22/2017 for failure to state a claim.
That case should have been reported in response to Question A on the
complaint form and counts as a “strike.”
Plaintiff also filed case number 5:19cv00373 in this Court on
10/03/2019; it was dismissed on 07/13/2020 for failure to comply with a
court order. Plaintiff’s fourth case was case number 4:20cv00319, filed in
this Court on 06/17/2020 and dismissed on 08/24/2020 after Plaintiff filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal. Finally, Plaintiff filed case number
8:18cv01308 in the Middle District of Florida on 06/01/2018; it was
dismissed on 06/14/2018 for lack of jurisdiction.
3:23cv823 was filed in federal court pursuant to a notice of removal on June 23, 2023,
and it is still pending. It is a civil case apparently challenging Plaintiff’s arrest, see ECF
No. 1, and discovery is scheduled to close on January 12, 2026, with dispositive
motions due by February 12, 2026. ECF No. 101 of that case.
Case No. 4:25cv396-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00396-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8
Plaintiff did not report eight cases. Despite Plaintiff being provided
with an opportunity to show good cause why this case should not be
dismissed, ECF No. 12, he did not respond. Plaintiff also did not file a
notice of voluntary dismissal.
Accordingly, it is recommended that this case be dismissed as
malicious and an abuse of the judicial process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) for Plaintiff’s failure to honestly disclose his litigation history. 	See
Allen v. Santiago, No. 22-11946, 2023 WL 5745494, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept.
6, 2023) (holding that “district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing Allen's complaint without prejudice because he failed to disclose
all of his relevant prior litigation, and the court was within its discretion to
dismiss as malicious because of that failure”); Redmon v. Lake Cty.
Sheriff’s Office, 414 F. App’x 221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that “district
court was entitled to conclude that Plaintiff had abused the judicial process
when he failed to” show good cause for not disclosing all prior lawsuits
filed); Young v. Sec’y Florida for Dep’t of Corr., 380 F. App’x 939, 941 (11th
Cir. 2010) (finding “district court did not abuse its discretion when it
sanctioned Young for failing to disclose his prior cases.”); Attwood v.
Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff did not properly
Case No. 4:25cv396-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00396-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8
complete the Court’s complaint form, failed to list all cases, and failed to
explain that failure when given the chance to do so. This Court has
“considerable discretion” in handling its docket, enforcing court rules, and
dealing with a Plaintiff who does not respond to an Order to Show Cause.
McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2025) (finding
“dismissal without prejudice . . . an appropriate exercise of the district
court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the local
rules”).
In making this recommendation, the Court notes that if this case is
dismissed as “malicious,” Plaintiff will incur a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g); that may, or may not, impact his ability to proceed with in forma
pauperis status in the future. 	See McNair, 143 F.4th at 1310 (Brasher,
concurring opinion); Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 820 F.3d 1278,
1281, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2016). Even so, dismissal should be “without
prejudice,” meaning that Plaintiff can “simply refile his complaint in
compliance with the court-approved form’s instructions” if he desires to do
so. Daniels v. Culpepper, No. 22-12805-A, 2023 WL 4195782, at *1 (11th
Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) (affirming dismissal of prisoner’s complaint as
“malicious” for failing to disclose two prior cases).
Case No. 4:25cv396-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00396-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 8, be DISMISSED for failure to
prosecute and as malicious for failing to honestly disclose Plaintiff’s prior
litigation history, and that his motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF
No. 2, be DENIED. 	It is further RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court
be directed to note on the docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 9, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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). 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.
Case No. 4:25cv396-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00396-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 01/09/26 Page 8 of 8