OSWALD v. SIMMONS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
CORY NOLE OSWALD,
Escambia County Jail #9701911461,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:26cv451/AW/ZCB
CHIP SIMMONS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Escambia County jail who has filed an
amended civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 4).1 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
1 Plaintiff’s initial complaint was not filed on the Court-approved form as
required by the Court’s local rules. (Doc. 1); N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A). For
this reason, the Court required Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on
the form. (Doc. 3).
Case 3:26-cv-00451-AW-ZCB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 9

2
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) 	(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”).2 	Dismissal is appropriate, even if the prisoner claims
2 There are a lot of unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases that say the same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
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 3:26-cv-00451-AW-ZCB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 9

3
that his failure to accurately disclose his litigation history was caused by
a misunderstanding or lack of memory. See Beshears v. Marion Cnty. Bd.
of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2020 WL 5949790, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020) (“The
District Court acted within its discretion in finding that Mr. Beshears’s
explanation 	for 	his 	failure 	to 	disclose 	this 	information—…that 	he
suffered from memory loss—was not a credible or persuasive reason for
failing to disclose his numerous other lawsuits.”); Redmon v. Lake Cnty.
Sheriff’s 	Office, 	414 	F. 	App’x 	221, 	226 	(11th 	Cir. 	2011) 	(affirming
dismissal for failure to disclose 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.
4 at 10-14).3 	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
3 The Court refers to the page numbers automatically assigned by the
Court’s electronic filing system.
Case 3:26-cv-00451-AW-ZCB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 9

4
conditions of your confinement?” (Id. at 12). Plaintiff answered “Yes” in
response to Question C and disclosed two cases:
• 	State v. Oswald, 2023-CF-005022 (Escambia Cnty. Cir. Ct.) and
• 	Oswald v. Clerk of Court, Case No. 3:26cv778-MW-HTC (N.D.
Fla.).
(Id. at 13).
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.” 	(Id. at 14-15).
Plaintiff, therefore, certified that—at the time he filed his amended
complaint on February 22, 2026—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
Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case 	Filing (CM/ECF) system,
Plaintiff filed the following undisclosed action before filing his amended
complaint: 	Oswald v. Graham, Case No. 3:26cv315-AW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.)
(federal § 1983 lawsuit against jail psychiatrist relating to conditions of
confinement at Escambia County jail).
Case 3:26-cv-00451-AW-ZCB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 9

5
How does the Court know that this Cory Oswald and the Cory
Oswald who filed the listed case are the same person? 	The plaintiff in
the listed case identified himself with the same Escambia County jail
inmate number as Plaintiff identified himself with in this case, Inmate
#9701911461.
Because the case listed above was a lawsuit challenging Plaintiff’s
conditions of confinement, it should have been disclosed in response to
Question C of the litigation history section of Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc.
4 at 12-13). 	Plaintiff failed to reference that case anywhere in his
complaint.
The prior litigation section 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,
Case 3:26-cv-00451-AW-ZCB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 9

6
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 McNair, 143 F. 4th at 1307 (stating that “[a]lthough a pro se litigant’s
filings are construed liberally, they must comply with procedural rules.”);
see also 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 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
Case 3:26-cv-00451-AW-ZCB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 9

7
their litigation history, thus draining the judicial system’s time and
resources.”).4
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.5 	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-
4 Plaintiff's failure to investigate his litigation history prior to filing his
amended complaint case does not excuse his inaccurate disclosure. 	See
Bashir v. Meherg, No. 5:22cv142, 2022 WL 4471965, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept.
26, 2022) (“The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that he does
not have access to PACER to research his prior cases and, as a result, he
had to rely on his memory to recall his litigation history. Even if that is
true, it does not excuse Plaintiff’s untruthful answers to the litigation
history questions on the civil rights complaint form because, like every
other inmate, Plaintiff has an obligation to maintain information (or at
least a list of case numbers) for all of his prior cases, and if he does not
have 	that 	information, 	he 	can 	(and 	should) 	request 	it 	from 	the
appropriate clerks’ offices before filing a new case.”).
5 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 3:26-cv-00451-AW-ZCB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 Page 7 of 9

8
approved complaint form and the Local Rules); Wromas v. Barker, No.
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 2nd day of March 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00451-AW-ZCB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 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 3:26-cv-00451-AW-ZCB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 Page 9 of 9