HELMICH v. HARRELSON et al

Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
KURT HELMICH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:26-cv-146-AW/MJF
D. HARRELSON and
RICKY DIXON,
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 was a Florida inmate formerly confined at the Taylor
Correctional Institution. Doc. 1 at 2. Plaintiff’s Florida Department of
Corrections number was #V30916. Id. On March 31, 2026, prior to his
release 	from 	prison, 	Plaintiff 	initiated 	this 	civil 	action 	by 	filing 	a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 1.
Case 4:26-cv-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 10

Page 2 of 10
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Screening of Plaintiff’s 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)).
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
Case 4:26-cv-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 10

Page 3 of 10
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. 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.
Case 4:26-cv-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 10

Page 4 of 10
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.
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. 1 at 8. 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?
Case 4:26-cv-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 4 of 10

Page 5 of 10
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 9–10.
Plaintiff responded, “No” to each question on the complaint form,
and Plaintiff did not disclose any 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 12–13. Thus, Plaintiff has in
effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, Plaintiff had never
filed a case in federal or state court.
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 the following case in federal court the complaint form
required him to disclose: Helmich v. Williams, et. al., No. 3:21-cv-391-
BJD/MCR (M.D. Fla. 2021).
Case 4:26-cv-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 5 of 10

Page 6 of 10
This 	case 	was 	responsive 	to 	Question 	A, 	Section 	VIII 	on 	the
complaint form because the case was dismissed prior to service pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s “three-strikes” rule. This case is attributable to
Plaintiff because Plaintiff filed this case while he was a pre-trial detainee
at the Duval County Jail and the case bears Plaintiff’s jail number
(#2019026305). The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office’s (“JSO”) records list
Plaintiff as bearing this jail number as well as an associated JSO
identification number (#724944). And in Plaintiff’s state criminal case,
State v. Kurt Helmich, No. 16-2014-CF-8326-AXXX-MA, the case docket
lists the same JSO identification number noted above and the arrest and
booking report lists the same FDC inmate number that Plaintiff included
in his complaint in this case.
By failing to disclose this case, 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”).
Case 4:26-cv-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 6 of 10

Page 7 of 10
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
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
entire 	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 his prior litigation. Doc. 1 at 12. Plaintiff also
Case 4:26-cv-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 7 of 10

Page 8 of 10
knew that the penalty for failing to disclose all prior cases was dismissal
of this case. Id. at 8; see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1.
Additionally, Plaintiff has abused the judicial process because the
civil rights complaint form explicitly reminds litigants of the three-strikes
rule. Doc. 1 at 8–9. The complaint form states:
ATTENTION: The “three strikes” rule of the PLRA bars a
prisoner from bringing a case without full payment of the
filing fee at the time of case initiation if the prisoner has “on
three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained
in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the
United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may 	be 	granted, 	unless 	the 	prisoner 	is 	under 	imminent
danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Id. Plaintiff knew he previously had been dismissed under the three-
strikes rule yet still failed to disclose in his complaint the case declaring
him a three-striker or any of the underlying cases that constituted a
strike.
Because Plaintiff knowingly abused the judicial process, 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
Case 4:26-cv-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 8 of 10

Page 9 of 10
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.”); Strickland v. United
States, 739 F. App’x 587, 588 (11th Cir. 2018) (“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.”).
C ONCLUSION
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.
Case 4:26-cv-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 9 of 10

Page 10 of 10
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 24th day of April 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
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-00146-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 10 of 10