CHAMBERS v. DIXON et al

Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
KEION NATHANIEL CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:26-cv-52-AW-MJF
RICKY DIXON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This 	amended 	report 	and 	recommendation 	supersedes 	the
undersigned’s initial report and recommendation dated February 13,
2026, Doc. 6, which addressed Plaintiff’s initial complaint, Doc. 1. This
amended 	report 	and 	recommendation 	addresses 	Plaintiff’s 	amended
complaint, Doc. 8, which was delivered to prison officials for mailing on
February 12, 2026. The undersigned recommends that the District Court
dismiss this case without prejudice because Plaintiff violated the Local
Rules by failing to disclose his litigation history as required by the
complaint form’s explicit instructions.
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 12

Page 2 of 12
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections
(“FDC”) housed at the Wakulla Correctional Institution Annex. Plaintiff’s
FDC inmate number is 187933. Doc. 8 at 1, 2.
Plaintiff initiated this civil action on January 20, 2026, by filing a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint
is the operative complaint. Doc. 8.
Plaintiff is suing seven prison officials at Wakulla CI. Plaintiff
alleges 	that 	the 	following 	events 	occurred 	on 	August 	22, 	2025: 	(1)
Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor and officers’ interfered with proper
medical treatment by attributing the fall to a drug overdose; and (2) other
officers 	subsequently 	used 	excessive 	force 	and 	sexually 	assaulted
Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that various supervisory officials
failed to properly address Plaintiff’s grievances regarding each incident.
Id. at 6–11. Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ conduct violated the First,
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 12–15. Plaintiff is seeking
compensatory, nominal and punitive damages. Id. at 16.
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 12

Page 3 of 12
DISCUSSION
A. 	Screening of Plaintiff’s 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), petition for cert. filed, No. 25-
808 (Jan. 6, 2026). “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)). These rules “are effective ‘unless modified or abrogated by the
judicial council of the relevant circuit.’” Brown v. Crawford County, 960
F.2d 1002, 1009 n.10 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2071(c)(1)).
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
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 12

Page 4 of 12
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.
Compl. Form at 8 (rev. June 2022); see also Doc. 8 at 16 in ECF (Pl’s
handwritten rendering of that directive which he inserted into the same
version of the form). The form goes on to state that the inmate should
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 12

Page 5 of 12
“[a]ttach additional pages as necessary to list all cases.” Compl.
Form at 10, 12; Doc. 8 at 18, 21 in ECF. 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.
Compl. Form at 12; Doc. 8 at 21 in ECF.
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-
right 	complaint 	form 	and 	to 	complete 	the 	form 	according 	to 	its
instructions.
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 12

Page 6 of 12
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. 8 at 18–24 in ECF. 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.
Plaintiff responded “Yes” to Question VIII(A), and disclosed the
following five cases he filed in federal court:
● 	Chambers v. Molter, No. 3:25-cv-8-LC-HTC (N.D. Fla.) (civil-
rights action);
● 	Chambers v. Nicolas, No. 3:24-cv-212-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla.)
(civil-rights action);
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 12

Page 7 of 12
● 	Chambers v. Butler, No. 3:23-cv-10285-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.)
(civil-rights action);
● 	Chambers v. Dade Cnty. Jail, No. 1:05-cv-21467-JEM (S.D.
Fla.) (civil-rights action); and
● 	Chambers v. State of Florida, No. 1:04-cv-21418-FAM (S.D.
Fla.) (mandamus action);
Doc. 8 at 17, 19.1 Plaintiff disclosed no other cases in response to Question
VIII(A). Plaintiff responded “No” to Question VIII(B) and disclosed no
cases in response to that question. Id. at 18.
Plaintiff responded “Yes” to Question VIII(C), and disclosed fifteen
cases he filed in state court. Id. at 18, 20–22. Plaintiff disclosed no other
cases.
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 21–23. Thus, Plaintiff has in
effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, he had not filed any
1 Plaintiff filed the two Southern District cases under the name “Keon
Chambers,” 	one 	of 	his 	many 	aliases. 	See 	Doc. 	8 	at 	2; 	see 	also
https://pubapps.fdc.myflorida.com/offenderSearch/detail.aspx?Page=Det
ail&DCNumber=187933&TypeSearch=AI.
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 12

Page 8 of 12
other lawsuit in federal court that was dismissed prior to service or for
failure to state a claim, or that related to the conditions of Plaintiff’s
confinement.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Omission
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the undersigned takes
judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff filed his complaint in this case,
Plaintiff had filed at least one additional case in federal court that the
complaint form required him to disclose.2 On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff
filed a civil-rights lawsuit in the Northern District of Florida against the
FDC and eight prison officials at the Santa Rosa Correctional Institution.
See Chambers v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:21-cv-677-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla. Apr.
16, 	2021). 	That 	lawsuit 	related 	to 	the 	conditions 	of 	Plaintiff’s
confinement. The court dismissed No. 3:21-cv-677 on January 27, 2022,
for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See Chambers
v. Santiago, No. 3:21-cv-677-MCR-HTC, 2021 WL 6753554 (N.D. Fla.
Nov. 9, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Chambers v.
2 By confining this discussion to only one case, the undersigned does not
suggest that it is the only additional case Plaintiff failed to disclose.
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 8 of 12

Page 9 of 12
Dep’t of Corr., 2022 WL 267797 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2022). This case bears
Plaintiff’s name and DC# (187933).
The foregoing case was responsive to Questions VIII(A) and (C) on
the complaint form because it was a lawsuit Plaintiff filed in federal court
that (1) was dismissed for failure to state a claim and prior to service,
and (2) related to the conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement. Plaintiff’s
failure to disclose the foregoing case violates the complaint form’s explicit
instructions and Plaintiff’s duty of candor to the District Court.
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.
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 9 of 12

Page 10 of 12
McNair, 143 F. 4th at 1308; Id. at 1306 (noting a district court’s “inherent
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 failing to disclose his
litigation history, as required by the duly adopted standard complaint
form. Plaintiff knew from reading the complaint form that he was
required to disclose all civil cases he filed prior to the complaint in this
case. See Compl. Form at 8. Plaintiff also knew that the penalty for failing
to disclose the prior lawsuit was dismissal of this case. Id.; see also N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Plaintiff knew this not only from the directive on the
complaint form, but also because one of Plaintiff’s prior cases in this
district court was dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose
his prior litigation. See Chambers v. Nicolas, No. 3:24-cv-212-MCR-HTC,
Doc. 18 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2024).
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
Case 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 10 of 12

Page 11 of 12
to comply with the complaint form’s explicit instructions is to dismiss this
case without prejudice. McNair, 143 F.4th at 1308; see also id. at n.4 (“[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 Court’s
inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the Local Rules,
based on Plaintiff’s 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 20th day of February, 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 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 11 of 12

Page 12 of 12
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 4:26-cv-00052-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/20/26 Page 12 of 12