FRANKLIN v. HANCOCK et al

Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
MYRON C. FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-339-MW-MJF
GLENN HANCOCK, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The District Court should dismiss this case without prejudice
because Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose honestly
his full litigation history.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Florida prisoner housed at the Charlotte Correctional
Institution. Doc. 5. Plaintiff’s Florida Department of Corrections inmate
number is L00647. Doc. 1.
Plaintiff initiated this civil action on November 19, 2025, by filing
a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff’ is suing thirteen
prison 	officials 	and 	medical 	providers 	at 	the 	Jackson 	Correctional
Institution. Plaintiff claims that the prison officials used excessive force
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 14

Page 2 of 14
on Plaintiff on October 24, 2024, and that the medical providers denied
Plaintiff 	prompt 	medical 	care 	for 	his 	injuries. 	Plaintiff 	is 	seeking
damages against Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
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:
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 14

Page 3 of 14
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. 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.
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 14

Page 4 of 14
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.
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 19–21 in ECF.1 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?
1 Because Plaintiff inserted pages into the complaint form, citations to
page numbers of Plaintiff’s complaint are to the numbers assigned by the
court’s Electronic Case Filing system (“ECF”).
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 14

Page 5 of 14
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 19–20. 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 each question on the complaint form
and disclosed a total of seven cases:
● 	Franklin v. Warden, No. 8:25-cv-764-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla.)
(civil-rights action);
● 	Franklin v. Daniels, No. 5:24-cv-268-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla.)
(civil-rights action);
● 	Franklin v. Hancock, No. 5:25-cv-150-MCR-MJF (N.D. Fla.)
(civil-rights action);
● 	Franklin v. Hancock, No. 5:25-cv-306-MCR-MJF (N.D. Fla.)
(civil-rights action);
● 	Franklin v. Nousianinen, No. 3:21-cv-798-MCR-ZCB (N.D.
Fla.) (civil-rights action);
● 	Franklin v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 0:11-cv-60306-JAWL (S.D. Fla.)
(habeas petition); and
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 5 of 14

Page 6 of 14
● 	Franklin v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 11-1477 (11th Cir.) (habeas
appeal).
Doc. 1 at 19–21. 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 22–23. Thus,
Plaintiff has in effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, he had
not filed any other appeal in federal court that challenged his conviction.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Omission
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the court takes judicial
notice that at the time Plaintiff filed his complaint in this case on
November 19, 2025, Plaintiff had filed at least one other case that was
required to be disclosed on the form. On June 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed an
appeal in federal court that challenged his conviction. See Franklin v.
Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 13-12825 (11th Cir.) (appeal from denial of habeas
petition in No. 0:11-cv-60306-JAWL).
The 	foregoing 	case 	was responsive 	to 	Question 	VIII(C) of the
complaint form because it was an appeal filed in federal court that
challenged Plaintiff’s conviction. By failing to disclose this prior case,
Plaintiff violated the complaint form’s explicit instructions and Plaintiff’s
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 6 of 14

Page 7 of 14
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 Omission
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
“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
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 7 of 14

Page 8 of 14
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
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”).
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 8 of 14

Page 9 of 14
The time that district courts are required to expend to verify the
cases a plaintiff has filed but failed to identify can be considerable. 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.
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
appeals that challenged his conviction. See Doc. 1 at 20. Plaintiff knew
this not only from the complaint form, but also from the report and
recommendation entered last August in Case No. 5:25-cv-150, which
Plaintiff acknowledged in his present complaint. Doc. 1 at 20; see also
Franklin v. Hancock, No. 5:25-cv-150, 2025 WL 3969933 (N.D. Fla. Aug.
19, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 78029 (N.D. Fla.
Jan. 9, 2026). The dismissal in No. 5:25-cv-150 was based on Plaintiff’s
failure to disclose his prior habeas petition (No. 0:11-cv-60306-JAWL
(S.D. 	Fla.)) 	and 	first 	appeal 	which 	resulted 	in 	remand 	for 	further
proceedings (No. 11-1477 (11th Cir.)).
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 9 of 14

Page 10 of 14
Plaintiff also knew that the penalty for failing to fully disclose his
litigation history was dismissal of the present case. Doc. 1 at 18; see also
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1.
There is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to respond truthfully to the
question on the complaint form. The question is 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). Also, the report and recommendation in No.
5:25-cv-150 (N.D. Fla.) made the duty to disclose this type of case clear.
The District Court 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 (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
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 10 of 14

Page 11 of 14
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).
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
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 11 of 14

Page 12 of 14
conduct.”). Because Plaintiff alleges that the incidents giving rise to his
claims occurred in 2024, 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 an 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
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
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 12 of 14

Page 13 of 14
required”); Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006)
(“[T]he district court was correct to conclude that to allow [the plaintiff]
to then acknowledge what he should have disclosed earlier would serve
to overlook his abuse of the judicial process.”).
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 of the Northern District of Florida.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 29th day of January 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
Case 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 13 of 14

Page 14 of 14
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 5:25-cv-00339-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 Page 14 of 14