GODWIN v. CROMARTIE et al

Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER ARNESS GODWIN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-357-MCR-MJF
OFFICER CROMARTIE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss this
case without prejudice because Plaintiff violated the Local Rules and
abused the judicial process by failing to disclose fully and accurately his
litigation history.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Florida prisoner housed at the Hamilton Correctional
Institution. Plaintiff’s Florida Department of Corrections inmate number
is 580603.
Plaintiff initiated this civil action on December 9, 2025, by filing a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint names as
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 13

Page 2 of 13
Defendants 	three 	correctional 	officers 	at 	the 	Gulf 	Correctional
Institution: Officer Cromartie, Officer Cole and Captain Horton. Plaintiff
alleges that Cromartie and Cole used excessive force on Plaintiff on June
6, 2022, when Cole—at Cromartie’s direction—sprayed Plaintiff with a
chemical agent. Plaintiff alleges that Horton failed to take disciplinary
or other corrective action against Cromartie and Cole. Plaintiff is seeking
$400,000.00 in damages.
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
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 13

Page 3 of 13
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-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 13

Page 4 of 13
the side of caution if you are uncertain whether a case
should be identified.
Doc. 1 at 11. 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. at 17.
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-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 13

Page 5 of 13
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 12–14. 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 12–13. 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 all three questions on the complaint
form, and disclosed no cases. Id. 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
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 5 of 13

Page 6 of 13
17–18. Thus, Plaintiff has in effect stated that at the time he filed this
lawsuit, he had not filed any other lawsuit in federal court that dealt with
the same facts or issue involved in this case, or that related to the
conditions of his confinement.
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
December 9, 2025, Plaintiff had filed at least one other federal case that
was required to be disclosed on the form. On September 18, 2023,
Plaintiff filed a civil-rights action against Cromartie, Cole and Horton
based on the same use of force incident at Gulf CI on June 6, 2022. See
Godwin v. Cromartie, No. 5:23-cv-250-TKW-MJF, Doc. 4 (Am. Compl.)
(N.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2023). Plaintiff later dismissed the case, citing his
desire to “proper[ly] prepare his issues and refile[] at a later time.” See
No. 5:23-cv-250-TKW-MJF, Doc. 7 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2023).
The foregoing case is responsive to Questions VIII(B) and (C) of the
complaint form. By failing to disclose this prior case, Plaintiff violated
the complaint form’s explicit instructions and Plaintiff’s duty of candor
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 6 of 13

Page 7 of 13
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
“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
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 7 of 13

Page 8 of 13
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
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
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 8 of 13

Page 9 of 13
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. 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 two questions
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 issue involved in
this case, or that related to the conditions of his confinement. See Doc. 1
at 13. Plaintiff also knew that the penalty for failing to disclose his
federal litigation history was dismissal of this case. Id. at 11; see also
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.”).
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 9 of 13

Page 10 of 13
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).
The District Court should not allow Plaintiff’s false responses 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.”). 	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,
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 10 of 13

Page 11 of 13
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 abuse of the judicial process
and Plaintiff’s violation of the Local Rules 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.”).
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 lawsuit would equate to overlooking
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 11 of 13

Page 12 of 13
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
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:
Case 5:25-cv-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 12 of 13

Page 13 of 13
1. 	DISMISS this case without prejudice for Plaintiff’s abuse
of the judicial process and 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 Panama City, Florida, this 2nd 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
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-00357-MCR-MJF Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 13 of 13