RAMSEY v. HUGHES et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
JAVONTE’ RAMSEY
a/k/a JOVONTE RAMSEY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv202/MW/ZCB
CAPTAIN HUGHES, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is a prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections
(FDOC). He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(Docs. 4, 33). 	Defendants have filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. R. 41(b)
as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his prior litigation
history. (Doc. 40 at 3-9). Defendants have alternatively moved to dismiss
Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. 	(Id. at 9-13).
Plaintiff has responded in opposition. 	(Doc. 45). 	For the reasons below,
the requests for declaratory and injunctive relief should be dismissed but
dismissal of the entire action is unwarranted.
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 10

2
I. 	Background
Plaintiff’s 	amended 	complaint 	names 	four 	FDOC 	correctional
officers as Defendants: 	Captain Hughes, Officer Ellis, Officer Gonzalez,
and Officer Hamm. (Doc. 33 at 1-4).1 	Plaintiff alleges Defendants Ellis,
Gonzalez, 	and 	Hamm 	used 	excessive 	force 	on 	April 	26, 	2024, 	and
Defendant Hughes failed to intervene. (Id. at 6-7). Plaintiff claims that
Defendants’ conduct violated the Eighth Amendment. 	(Id. at 8). 	He
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages.
(Id.).
Defendants seek dismissal of the amended complaint under Rule
41(b) without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation
history. 	(Doc. 40 at 3-9). 	Defendants alternatively seek dismissal of
Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief because such
relief is unavailable. 	(Id. at 9-13). 	Plaintiff opposes both arguments.
(Doc. 45).
1 The Court refers to the page numbers automatically assigned by the
Court’s electronic filing system.
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 10

3
II. 	Discussion
A. 	Dismissal 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	amended 	complaint 	is 	not
warranted for his alleged failure to accurately disclose
his litigation history on the Court’s complaint form.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize courts to dismiss an
action if a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order. 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b). The Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida require pro se
prisoners in civil rights cases to file such cases using the Court-approved
complaint form. 	See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A). 	The complaint form
requires the disclosure of a prisoner’s litigation history. 	The form must
be signed under penalty of perjury. 	The Eleventh Circuit has held that
a prisoner’s case may be dismissed without prejudice for failing to
accurately disclose litigation history on the complaint form. 	See McNair
v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2025).2
2 There are a lot of unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases that say the same
thing. See, e.g., Allen v. Santiago, No. 22-11946, 2023 WL 5745494, at *1
(11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2023) (affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case
because he failed to disclose all of his relevant prior litigation); Kendrick
v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (11th
Cir. July 1, 2022) (stating that “[a] plaintiff’s bad-faith litigiousness or
manipulative tactics, which include lying about one’s litigation history,
warrant[s] dismissal”); Jones v. Szalai, 778 F. App’x 847, 848 (11th Cir.
2019) (affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case as an appropriate
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 10

4
Here, the complaint form required Plaintiff to disclose information
regarding prior civil cases he had filed in state and federal courts. (Doc.
33 at 9-12). 	As relevant here, Question C of the Prior Litigation section
of the complaint form asked Plaintiff if he had “filed any other lawsuit in
federal court either challenging your conviction or otherwise relating to
the conditions of your confinement?” (Id. at 11). Plaintiff answered “Yes”
in response to Question C and disclosed one federal habeas case: Ramsey
v. Secretary, No. 3:24-cv-01041-MMH-PBD (M.D. Fla.). (Id. at 12).
According to Defendants, Plaintiff did not disclose a state court
appeal of a postconviction motion that originated in his state criminal
case, Appeal No. 5D23-0472. (Doc. 40 at 6-7). Defendants argue Plaintiff
was required to disclose that state court appeal in his answer to Question
C, but he failed to do so. (Id. at 5-7).
sanction for plaintiff’s failing to disclose a prior case on the complaint
form); Strickland v. United States, 739 F. App’x 587, 588 (11th Cir. 2018)
(affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s case because he misrepresented
the number of cases he had previously filed in the district court); Wynn
v. Postal Serv., 735 F. App’x 704, 705 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal
of pro se plaintiff’s case after he failed to disclose a habeas action because
the habeas action fell “squarely within the complaint form’s disclosure
requirements”).
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 10

5
The Court disagrees with Defendants for two reasons. 	First,
Question C of the complaint form on which Plaintiff filed his amended
complaint did not require Plaintiff to disclose cases filed in state court;
instead, it required disclosure of only federal lawsuits. 	(Doc. 33 at 11).3
Second, 	even 	if 	Plaintiff 	was 	required 	to 	disclose 	the 	state 	appeal
identified by Defendants, Plaintiff sufficiently disclosed that appeal in
his answer to Question C. 	Plaintiff identified a state court appeal
stemming 	from 	his 	criminal 	case 	that 	reached 	final 	disposition 	on
October 9, 2023. (Id. at 11-12). According to Defendants’ exhibits, Appeal
No. 5D23-0472 (the case he allegedly failed to disclose) reached final
disposition on October 6, 2023 and was docketed in the lower court on
October 6, 2023 and October 9, 2023. 	(Docs. 40-1, 40-2). 	Plaintiff’s
3 	Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed on a document that is a
combination of two forms—the first several pages of the document were
from the Court’s current form (revised in June of 2022), while the
remaining pages of the document were from a prior form that is no longer
used by the Court (the December 2016 form). 	That is significant here
because the prior litigation section of the December 2016 form (that was
used by Plaintiff here) did not require disclosure of both state and federal
cases. 	The Court revised the form in June 2022 to require disclosure of
both state and federal lawsuits and appeals that either challenge the
plaintiff’s 	conviction 	or 	relate 	to 	the 	plaintiff’s 	conditions 	of 	his
confinement. (Doc. 1 at 11).
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 10

6
description of the state appeal in trial court case as reaching disposition
on October 9, 2023 was sufficient to disclose this state appeal under the
circumstances. (Doc. 33 at 12).4 	Accordingly, the Court does not believe
dismissal is warranted for failure to disclose litigation history.
B. 	Dismissal of Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and
injunctive 	relief 	is 	warranted 	because 	they 	are
unavailable as a matter of law.
Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and
injunctive relief should be dismissed. (Doc. 40 at 9-13). They argue such
relief is unavailable as a matter of law because Plaintiff’s requests are
based purely on past conduct, and he does not allege he faces irreparable
harm if such relief is not granted. (Id.).
A court only may issue a declaratory judgment only in a case of
“actual controversy.” 	28 U.S.C. § 2201. 	This means a plaintiff must
4 Defendants assert an additional reason for dismissal is the fact that
Plaintiff failed to disclose several state criminal appeals in his initial
complaint, even though he disclosed them in his amended complaint.
(Doc. 40 at 7-9). The Court rejects that argument for three reasons. First,
Plaintiff had the right to amend his complaint under Rule 15(a)(1).
Second, his amended complaint replaced his initial complaint. And third,
his amended complaint sufficiently disclosed his litigation history (as
explained above).
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 6 of 10

7
allege facts demonstrating that the harm caused by the defendants is
ongoing or will be repeated in the future. Emory v. Peeler, 756 F.2d 1547,
1552 (11th Cir. 1985). 	A declaration that only past conduct violated a
plaintiff’s constitutional rights would be “nothing more than a gratuitous
comment without any force or effect.” 	Id. (cleaned up).
A 	plaintiff 	seeking 	injunctive 	relief 	must 	allege 	“a 	real 	and
immediate—as opposed to a merely hypothetical or conjectural—threat
of future injury.” 	Strickland v. Alexander, 772 F.3d 876, 883 (11th Cir.
2014). 	This is because injunctions are aimed at preventing future
wrongdoing, as opposed to remedying past wrongs. 	Id.
Here, Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief are
based on Defendants’ past conduct―their use of force and failure to
intervene on April 26, 2024 at Santa Rosa C.I. 	Plaintiff was not housed
at Santa Rosa C.I. when he filed this § 1983 action; instead, he was
housed at Florida State Prison, which is where he remains. (Doc. 1 at 1,
14-15; Doc. 45). 	Plaintiff does not allege any Defendant is employed at
Florida State Prison or that he will soon be transferred back to Santa
Rosa C.I. Although Plaintiff alleges he “is still at a risk of serious harm”
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 7 of 10

8
because he is still an FDOC inmate and on close management custody
status 	(Doc. 	45 	at 	3-4), 	this 	allegation 	is 	not 	sufficient 	to 	show 	a
“substantial continuing controversy between the parties” that creates a
“definite, rather than speculative threat of future injury.” 	Emory, 756
F.2d at 1552 (citations omitted). 	While it is possible Plaintiff may once
again be incarcerated at a prison where one of the Defendants works,
such speculation is insufficient to establish a basis for injunctive relief.
See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983) (explaining that
speculation is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live
controversy required for injunctive relief).
For 	these 	reasons, 	Plaintiff’s 	requests 	for 	declaratory 	and
injunctive relief should be dismissed. See Thorpe v. Dumas, 788 F. App’x
644, 649 	(11th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for
declaratory 	relief 	where 	plaintiff 	was 	attempting 	to 	adjudicate
defendants’ past conduct and did not claim any ongoing violation of his
constitutional rights); see also Holt v. Crist, 233 F. App’x 900, 903-04
(11th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief where plaintiff’s factual allegations related to past
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 8 of 10

9
conduct, and he made no allegation of a continuing injury or a showing
of a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury which was neither remote
nor speculative but actual and imminent).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 40) be GRANTED only
to the extent that Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive
relief be DISMISSED. 	Defendants’ motion be DENIED in all other
respects.
2. 	This case be recommitted to the magistrate judge for further
proceedings 	on 	Plaintiff’s 	Eighth 	Amendment 	claims 	for 	monetary
damages against Defendants.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 2nd day of December 2025.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
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 and does not control. 	An objecting party must
serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. 	A party who fails to
object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 9 of 10

10
in a 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. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-00202-MW-ZCB Document 46 Filed 12/02/25 Page 10 of 10