WHARTON v. COUVERTIER et al

Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JASON T. WHARTON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-305-MCR-MJF
K. COUVERTIER, 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 Santa Rosa
Correctional Institution. Plaintiff’s inmate number is G04241.
On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this civil action against three
employees of the Florida Department of Corrections. Doc. 1 at 1, 34.
Because 	the 	complaint 	did 	not 	comply 	with 	the 	Local 	Rules, 	the
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 15

Page 2 of 15
undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the court-
approved form. Doc. 4.
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint names as Defendants Ricky
Dixon, 	Warden 	W.D. 	Maddox, 	and 	Officer 	K. 	Couvertier. 	Doc. 	10.
Plaintiff sues Defendants in their official capacities for damages. Plaintiff
asserts that he was convicted of a false disciplinary report and denied
due process.
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
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 15

Page 3 of 15
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
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
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 15

Page 4 of 15
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.
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 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 15

Page 5 of 15
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. 10 at 9–12. 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 9–10. 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, “No” to Questions A and did not disclose any
cases. Id. Plaintiff responded, “Yes” to Questions B and C and disclosed
he had filed five cases challenging his conviction in state court. Doc. 10
at 9–10. Plaintiff also disclosed that he had filed the following cases in
federal court:
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 15

Page 6 of 15
• 	Wharton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 1:22cv273-AW/HTC (N.D. Fla.).
• 	Wharton v. Dixon, No. 1:25cv337-AW/MJF (N.D. Fla).
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, he never filed any other
case in federal court.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Omissions
The undersigned takes judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff
filed his complaint in this case on August 16, 2025, Plaintiff had filed at
least two other federal cases that Plaintiff was required to disclose.
On November 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a pro se § 2254 habeas petition
challenging his conviction. Wharton v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 1:21-cv-
181-AW/HTC (N.D. Fla). On July 28, 2022, the district court dismissed
the petition for failure to exhaust. Id., ECF Nos. 19, 20. 	The docket in
that case reflects that Plaintiff’s inmate number was G04241.
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 15

Page 7 of 15
Additionally, on March 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a pro se § 2254
habeas petition challenging his conviction. Wharton v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of
Corr., 1:21-cv-44-AW/GRJ (N.D. Fla.). On June 29, 2021, the clerk of the
court 	closed 	the 	case 	because 	Plaintiff 	filed 	a 	notice 	of 	voluntary
dismissal. Id., ECF Nos. 7, 8. The docket in that case reflects that
Plaintiff’s inmate number was G04241.
These cases were responsive to Question C on the complaint form
because they were habeas petitions filed in federal court that challenged
Plaintiff’s conviction. By failing to disclose these cases, 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 Materiality of Plaintiff’s Omissions
Courts have recognized that information regarding a plaintiff’s
litigation history is useful to federal courts:
[I]t 	allows 	efficient 	consideration 	of 	whether 	the
prisoner is entitled to pursue the current action under the
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 7 of 15

Page 8 of 15
“three strikes” provision of the [PLRA]; it allows consideration
of whether the action is related to, or otherwise should be
considered in conjunction with or by the same judge who
presided 	over, 	another 	action; 	it 	allows 	consideration 	of
whether any ruling in the other action affects the prisoner’s
current case. All of these things are appropriately considered
in connection with the preliminary review of such a complaint
under the [PLRA].
Spires v. Taylor, No. 3:00-cv-249-RH, Order of Dismissal, Doc. 10 (N.D.
Fla. 	Oct. 	27, 	2000). 	Also, 	this 	“information 	may 	assist 	a 	court 	in
identifying suits that are repetitious of prior or pending lawsuits and
hence frivolous.” In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 969 (2d Cir. 1989); see Bilal v.
Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that, in assessing
frivolousness, 	courts 	may 	consider 	“a 	litigant’s 	history 	of 	bringing
unmeritorious 	litigation”). 	Additionally, 	because 	prisoner-plaintiffs
generally proceed pro se, information regarding a plaintiff’s litigation
history assists district courts in determining the plaintiff’s experience
and familiarity with the legal terrain.
“Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional
obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their
ability to carry out Article III functions.” Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d
1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 8 of 15

Page 9 of 15
1254, 1261–62 (2d Cir. 1984). Courts also have “a responsibility to
prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the judicial
machinery needed by others.” 	Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074. Requiring
prisoner-plaintiffs to divulge their record of litigation serves all these
compelling interests. Thus, to conserve judicial resources and effectively
manage their dockets, courts may require prisoner-plaintiffs to disclose
their litigation history. See Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d
1253, 	1262 	(11th 	Cir. 	2014) 	(noting 	that 	district 	courts 	have
“unquestionable authority to control their own dockets; this authority
includes broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before
them”).
The time that district courts are required to expend to verify the
cases a plaintiff has filed but failed to identify can be considerable. This
is especially true in this case where a plaintiff has filed cases in other
jurisdictions and under additional inmate numbers. When courts cannot
rely on the statements or responses made by parties, the quality of justice
is threatened. Courts, therefore, cannot tolerate false or misleading
responses in pleadings or motions.
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 9 of 15

Page 10 of 15
Here, as detailed above, Plaintiff falsely responded to a question on
the complaint form and violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose his
full litigation history as required by the complaint form. Plaintiff knew
from reading the complaint form that he was required to disclose all prior
federal cases that dealt with the same facts or issues involved in this
case. See Doc. 10 at 8, 10, 12. Plaintiff also knew that the penalty for
failing to disclose his federal litigation history was dismissal. Id. at 8;
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (warning that the failure to follow an applicable
rule is a ground for “dismiss[al] [of] a claim.”).
There is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to respond truthfully to the
questions on the complaint form. The questions are straightforward and
easily understandable. See Kendrick, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (noting
that the questions on the court-form are not complicated and a plaintiff’s
pro se 	status was not an excuse for failing to honestly answer the
straightforward questions). Plaintiff is in a superior position to know
whether he filed cases and if so, in which courts he had filed those cases.
Additionally, in each case filed in this district, the clerk of the court sends
a “Notice to Pro Se” litigants, which specifically advises that the plaintiff
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 10 of 15

Page 11 of 15
“should keep one copy of all documents you file or receive in this case for
your personal records.” Doc. 2 ¶ 4; see Wharton v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,
1:21-cv-181-AW/HTC, 	ECF No. 	2 (N.D. 	Fla) (mailed to 	Plaintiff on
November 2, 2021); Wharton v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 1:21-cv-44-
AW/GRJ, ECF No. 2 (N.D. Fla.) (mailed to Plaintiff on March 15, 2021).
Thus, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to ensure that he has a list of his
litigation history. Washington v. Dyas, 5:22-CV-285-TKW-MJF, 2023 WL
359508, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2023). If he did not have the information,
he could (and should) have requested it from the appropriate clerks’
offices before filing a new case. Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) (By signing
and presenting a pleading to the court, an “unrepresented party certifies
that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed
after 	an 	inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . 	the 	factual
contention have evidentiary support.”) (emphasis added).
The District Court, therefore, should not allow Plaintiff’s false
response to go unpunished. A penalty is warranted both to deter Plaintiff
from such conduct and to deter others from similar misrepresentations
and omissions. See Strickland v. United States, 739 F. App’x 587, 588
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 11 of 15

Page 12 of 15
(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.”). If Plaintiff suffered no penalty for
his untruthful response, there would be little or no disincentive for
Plaintiff’s attempt to evade or undermine the purpose of the form.
E. 	The Appropriate Sanction Is Dismissal Without Prejudice
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 	(“Dismissal 	without 	prejudice 	was 	an
appropriate exercise of the district court’s inherent authority to manage
its docket and enforce the local rules. [Plaintiff] violated the local rules
by failing to disclose his full litigation history, as required by the duly
adopted standard complaint form.”); see also Sears v. Haas, 509 F. App’x
935, 936 (11th Cir. 2013).
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 12 of 15

Page 13 of 15
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. 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.”).
Because Plaintiff alleges that the incidents giving rise to his claims
began May 14, 2025, 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).
F. 	No lesser Sanction Would Suffice
A sanction less than dismissal would not suffice to deter Plaintiff’s
conduct. For example, providing Plaintiff yet another opportunity to
amend his complaint to disclose the previous lawsuits would equate to
overlooking his abuse of the judicial process, because that course of action
would entail no penalty. See Young v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 380 F. App’x
939, 940–41 (11th Cir. 2010) (district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying leave to amend the complaint so that the plaintiff could disclose
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 13 of 15

Page 14 of 15
lawsuits that should have been disclosed initially); Harris v. Warden, 498
F. App’x 962, 964–65 (11th Cir. 2012) (rejecting prisoner’s argument that
it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss case without allowing him “to
correct” his omissions by disclosing his litigation history; record showed
that 	prisoner 	“affirmatively 	misrepresented 	the 	facts” 	by 	failing 	to
disclose prior cases and that he “knew, or from reading the Complaint
form should have known, that disclosure of the relevant prior actions was
required”).
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this case without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure
to comply with the Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 16th day of December 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 14 of 15

Page 15 of 15
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. If a party disputes
the accuracy of any judicially-noticed fact, or if a party
desires to be heard on the propriety of the District
Court taking judicial notice, a party must raise this
issue 	in 	an 	objection 	to 	this 	report 	and
recommendation.
Case 5:25-cv-00305-MCR-MJF Document 13 Filed 12/16/25 Page 15 of 15