SAGESSE v. MOORE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
RONES SAGESSE,
FDOC Inmate #Y58036,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv765/LAC/ZCB
NURSE JONES, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is a Florida prisoner who has filed an amended civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(Doc. 10). 	Having reviewed the
amended complaint, the Court believes dismissal is warranted because
Plaintiff has not accurately disclosed his litigation history despite being
required to do so.
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
Case 3:25-cv-00765-AW-ZCB Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 9

2
v. 	Johnson, 	143 	F.4th 	1301, 	1307-08 	(11th 	Cir. 	2025) 	(affirming
“[d]ismissal without prejudice [as] an appropriate exercise of the district
court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the local
rules” where the plaintiff “violated the local rules by failing to disclose
his full litigation history, as required by the duly adopted standard
complaint form”).1 	Dismissal is appropriate, even if the prisoner claims
that a misunderstanding caused his failure to accurately disclose his
litigation history. See Redmon v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 414 F. App’x
221, 226 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal for failure to disclose
1 There are a lot of unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases that say the same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
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-00765-AW-ZCB Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 9

3
litigation history and concluding that prisoner’s failure was not excused
by his claimed misunderstanding of the form).
Here, the complaint form required Plaintiff to disclose information
regarding prior civil cases he had filed in state and federal courts. (Doc.
10 at 8-12). 	Question C of the Prior Litigation section asked Plaintiff if
he had “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 10). Plaintiff answered “Yes” in
response to Question C and disclosed six federal cases and three state
cases:
• 	Case No. 2:18cv225-JES-M_M (M.D. Fla.)
• 	Case No. 3:25cv765-LC-ZCB (N.D. Fla.)
• 	Case No. 3:25cv1056-MW-HTC (N.D. Fla.)
• 	Case No. “T.B.D.” (N.D. Fla.) (assigned 3:25cv1556-LAC-HTC)
• 	Case 	No. 	2:23cv7-SPC-K_D 	(M.D. 	Fla.) 	(habeas 	petition
challenging state court judgment in Case No. 2016-CF-18955 (20th
Jud. Cir.))
• 	Case No. 1:20cv238-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla.)
• 	Case No. 2023-CA-121 (14th Jud. Cir.)
• 	Case No. 2024-CA-000398 (1st Jud. Cir.)
• 	Case No. 2024-CA-000399 (1st Jud. Cir.)
Case 3:25-cv-00765-AW-ZCB Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 9

4
(Id. at 11-12, 24).2
At the end of the complaint form, Plaintiff signed his name after
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.” (Doc. 10 at 12-13).
Plaintiff, therefore, certified that—at the time he filed his amended
complaint case on August 19, 2025—he had fully disclosed his litigation
history.
The 	Court 	has 	researched 	Plaintiff’s 	litigation 	history 	and
discovered that he failed to accurately disclose it. According to the Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, Plaintiff filed the
following undisclosed appeals before filing his amended complaint:
• 	Sagesse 	v. 	Warden, 	et 	al., 	Case 	No. 	21-13723 	(11th 	Cir.)
(interlocutory appeal of order entered § 1983 case, No. 1:20cv238-
AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), challenging conditions of confinement (use of
excessive force at Cross City Correctional Institution)) (filed on
October 25, 2021, dismissed on December 22, 2021 for lack of
prosecution);
• 	Sagesse v. Warden, et al., Case No. 23-10518 (11th Cir.) (appeal of
final judgment entered Case No. 1:20cv238-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla.)
(same § 1983 case challenging conditions of confinement (use of
2 Plaintiff disclosed the same cases in his answers to Questions A and B
of the Prior Litigation section of the complaint form. 	(Doc. 10 at 9-10,
23).
Case 3:25-cv-00765-AW-ZCB Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 9

5
excessive force at Cross City C.I.)) (filed on February 17, 2023,
dismissed on June 21, 2023 for lack of prosecution);
• 	Sagesse v. Warden, et al., Case No. 25-10206 (11th Cir.) (appeal of
post-judgment order entered in Case No. 1:20cv238-AW-HTC (N.D.
Fla.) (same § 1983 case challenging conditions of confinement (use
of excessive force at Cross City C.I.)) (filed on January 23, 2025,
dismissed on February 11, 2025 for lack of prosecution).
How does the Court know that this Rones Sagesse and the Rones
Sagesse who filed the above appeals are the same person? 	Plaintiff
disclosed the lower court case, Case No. 1:20cv238/AW/HTC (N.D. Fla.)
in response to the complaint form’s litigation history section. (Doc. 10 at
11). Additionally, Plaintiff’s FDOC inmate number listed in his amended
complaint (Doc. 10) matches the FDOC inmate number used by the
appellant in the appeals listed above.
Because 	the 	appeals 	listed 	above 	are 	“appeal[s] 	in…federal
court…relating to the conditions of [Plaintiff’s] confinement” the appeals
should have been disclosed in response to Question C of the litigation
history section of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (Doc. 10 at 10-12). But
Plaintiff failed to reference any of the appeals anywhere in his amended
complaint.3
3 Plaintiff omitted the Prior Litigation and Certification sections from his
original complaint. (Doc. 1).
Case 3:25-cv-00765-AW-ZCB Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 9

6
The prior litigation portion of the complaint form serves important
purposes. First, it permits efficient consideration of whether the prisoner
is entitled to pursue the current action under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision. 	Second, it allows the Court to
determine 	whether 	an 	action 	is 	related 	to, 	or otherwise 	should 	be
considered in conjunction with, another lawsuit. 	Third, it enables the
Court to determine whether any issues raised in the current action have
been previously decided by another judge. These purposes are thwarted,
and the efficiency of the judicial system diminished, when a prisoner
misstates his litigation history on the complaint form.
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from following the
rules, including the requirement that litigants be truthful with the Court.
See Kendrick v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425,
at *3 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022) (stating that pro se litigants “owe the same
duty of candor to the court as imposed on any other litigant”). 	The
undersigned agrees with another judge on this Court who stated the
following: 	“If the requirement for prisoner plaintiffs to disclose their
prior lawsuits is to serve its purpose, a plaintiff must provide accurate
information. 	If 	word 	got 	around 	the 	prisons 	that 	inaccurate 	or
incomplete information could be provided with no effective sanction, the
Case 3:25-cv-00765-AW-ZCB Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 6 of 9

7
form would serve little purpose. And word does get around the prisons.”
Rodriguez v. Inch, No. 4:19cv191, 2020 WL 3050231, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June
7, 2020) (Hinkle, J.); see also Strickland, 739 F. App’x at 588 (“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.”).
As detailed above, Plaintiff misstated his prior litigation history on
the complaint form that the Local Rules required him to use. Consistent
with the Eleventh Circuit precedent previously cited, this matter should
be dismissed without prejudice.4 	See McNair, 143 F.4th at 1307-08
(affirming dismissal without prejudice where pro se prisoner failed to
accurately 	disclose 	his 	litigation 	history 	as 	required 	by 	the 	Court-
approved complaint form and the Local Rules); Wromas v. Barker, No.
4 Providing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose
the previous lawsuit would be an inadequate sanction. See Young v. Sec’y
for Dep’t of Corr., 380 F. App’x 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that
district court did not abuse its discretion by not providing a prisoner with
an opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose lawsuits that should
have been disclosed initially); see also Rodriguez, 2020 WL 3050231, at
*1 (stating that “dismissal without prejudice is not too severe a sanction”
for failing to accurately disclose litigation history).
Case 3:25-cv-00765-AW-ZCB Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 7 of 9

8
3:25CV891-MW/ZCB, 2025 WL 1953112, at *1 (N.D. Fla. July 16, 2025)
(dismissing 	prisoner 	complaint 	without 	prejudice 	“pursuant 	to 	this
Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the local
rules, based on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his prior litigation
history”); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A) (requiring pro se parties to file
civil rights complaints using a Court-approved form); N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
41.1 (allowing the Court to dismiss claims for a party’s failure to comply
with an applicable rule or order).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED without prejudice under the
Court’s inherent power to manage its docket and enforce the Local Rules,
based on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 4th day of November 2025.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00765-AW-ZCB Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 8 of 9

9
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 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-00765-AW-ZCB Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 9 of 9