UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION

ADRIAN FRANCIS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25cv643-AW-HTC

SANTA ROSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Adrian Francis Williams, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil rights complaint against seven correctional officers for failing to protect him from gang members while at Santa Rosa Correctional Institute. Doc. 1. Upon review, the undersigned recommends this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, (“PLRA”), the court shall review “as soon as practicable” any prisoner’s complaint seeking redress from governmental employees and, upon such review, shall “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint is (1) frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a–b); see also

(e)(2)(B) (setting the same standard for in forma pauperis litigants).

II. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE As part of this Court’s complaint form, prisoners are asked to disclose their litigation history. Section VIII.A. of the form asks Plaintiff whether he has “had any

case in federal court, including federal appellate court, dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for failure to state a claim, or prior to service.”

. In response, Plaintiff disclosed two prior 1983 cases: (1) Williams v. Bryant, et al., 4:13-vc- 00298-MW-MAF and (2) Williams v. Burch, et al., 4:20-cv-00288-TKW-MAF.

Doc 1 at 22-23. However, he failed to truthfully disclose the disposition of those cases. In Williams v. Bryant, et al, 4:13-cv-00298-MW-MAF, the court dismissed

Plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim. Doc. 110 at 1. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Doc. 129 at 2. Nonetheless, Plaintiff wrongly claimed in his complaint that “[T]he 11th Circuit found 3 of the Defendants listed in my § 1983 negligen[t] due to these repeated issues of deliberate indifference issues.”

Doc. 1. at 22. In Williams v. Burch et al, 4:20-cv-00288-TKW-MAF, the Plaintiff wrote: “I dismissed it and forgave Florida D.O.C. in God’s name.” Doc. 1. at 23. However, the docket reflects that a motion to dismiss some of Plaintiff’s claims was granted, and that summary judgment was eventually granted as to the remaining claims.

Williams also failed to truthfully answer Question III.C., which asks whether Plaintiff has filed any other lawsuit, habeas petition, or appeal in state or federal court either challenging his conviction or relating to the conditions of his

confinement. Doc. 1 at 23. Although the Plaintiff checked “Yes” to Question C he did not identify any cases. As a matter of course, the Court attempts to make an independent investigation into whether litigants truthfully complete the complaint forms,

especially when a lack of candor in informing the Court of prior lawsuits may affect the Court’s jurisdiction. The time spent verifying the cases a plaintiff has filed but failed to identify, as well as the claims raised in those cases and their disposition,

can be considerable. Upon such an investigation, the undersigned takes judicial notice of the following four (4) habeas petitions that Plaintiff filed but failed to disclose: Williams v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections et al., No. 3:12-cv-01296- BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2015) (dismissed with prejudice)

Williams v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections et al., No. 3:14-cv-00706- MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla. July 5, 2017) (dismissed with prejudice)

Williams v. The Secretary of the Florida Dept. of Corrections et al, No. 3:19-cv-00121-TJC-PDB (M.D. Feb. 20, 2019) (dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction) Williams v. Secretary of the Florida Dept. of Corrections, No. 3:19-cv- 00397-BJD-JK (M.D. Fla. Sep. 10, 2021) (dismissed with prejudice)

Plaintiff appealed each of these denials in USCA #14-13686, #15-13112, #17- 14655, and #21-13317, respectively. However, he failed to disclose any of these federal actions despite the complaint form’s clear instructions and his answer to Question C. Plaintiff seeks to be excused from being forthright with the Court by contending he does not have access to all his legal work and alleges officials are

stealing the legal work or gang members are doing so. He argues without this information he cannot “properly answer these questions.” Doc. 1 at 23. The Court disagrees. First, if Plaintiff’s legal work is being stolen, he has both administrative

and civil remedies he can pursue. Second, Plaintiff can request a listing of the cases he has filed and pay for copies of the complaints or disposition of the cases from the courts. See Sheffield v. Brown,

at *3 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2023) (“Plaintiff could have requested his litigation history from the appropriate clerks of

the various courts…[a]s such, Plaintiff simply cannot blame his faulty memory for his failure to respond to the questions.”); see also Owens v. Oliver,

at *2 (N.D. Fla. Sep. 23, 2020) (“Thus, Owens’s explanation—a faulty

memory regarding cases filed long away—rings hollow. His explanation simply is not credible. Furthermore, Owens could have—but failed to—seek a list of his cases from the respective clerk of courts to ensure that he had not omitted any cases from his litigation history.”) Indeed, the Court’s complaint form directs prisoners to “err on the side of caution,”1 and Plaintiff could have (and should have) identified as

much information he could – leaving the section blank and identifying no cases is not acceptable. See McClain v. Nelson,

, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2011), report and recommendation adopted,

(S.D. Ga. Feb. 17,

2011) (“The Court rejects McClain's explanation. Even if he no longer had access to the older lawsuit documents, he surely retained some personal memory of them, and nothing stopped him from truthfully telling the Court that prior lawsuits existed and beckon[ing] the Court to look them up.”). Thus, the Court does not find

Plaintiff’s purported lack of access to legal work justifies his failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history. See Beshears v. Marion County Board of County Comm’rs,

, at * 2 (11th Cir. April 20, 2020) (“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 credible or persuasive reason for failing to disclose his numerous other lawsuits”). The Court has the authority to control and manage matters pending before it,

and Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from conforming to acceptable

1 Although Plaintiff used the Court’s complaint form, he omitted some pages from the form when he filed the document, including the instructions for completing the “prior litigation” section of the form. Nonetheless, he is bound to those instructions regardless of whether he chose to file the entire complaint form. standards in approaching the Court. If the Court cannot rely on the statements or responses made by the parties, it threatens the quality of justice. The Court will not

tolerate false responses or statements in any pleading or motion filed before it. If Plaintiff suffered no penalty for his untruthful responses, there would be little or no disincentive for his attempt to evade or undermine the purpose of the form. Thus,

the Court should not allow Plaintiff’s misrepresentation to go unpunished. An appropriate sanction for the Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court with true factual responses is to dismiss this case without prejudice. See Bratton v. Sec’y DOC,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2012) (dismissing case without

prejudice when prisoner failed to disclose one prior federal case that was dismissed pursuant to

(e)(2)). Johnson v. Crawson, Case No. 5:08cv300-RS- EMT,

(N.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2010) (dismissing case without

prejudice when prisoner failed to disclose one prior federal case); see also Strickland v. United States,

, 588 (11th Cir. 2018) (“A sanction less than dismissal would signal that a failure to disclose filings is an infraction without consequence.”).

As another judge from this District stated in a similar ruling, “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.” Rodriguez v. Inch, No. 4:19cv191-RH-HTC, at Doc. 52 (N.D. Fla. June 7, 2020).

Indeed, “[a] plaintiff’s affirmative misrepresentation regarding his prior legal history, when the complaint form required disclosure of such history and the plaintiff’s statements were made under penalty of perjury, constitutes abuse of the

judicial process warranting dismissal of the case without prejudice as ‘malicious’ under the PLRA, § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Myrick v. Martin, No. 3:14CV77/LAC/EMT,

, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 1, 2014) (dismissing case as “malicious” under

(e)(2)(B)(i) and 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(b)(1) for plaintiff's failure to disclose two prior actions). Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 1. This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under

(e)(2)(B)(i) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as malicious for abuse of the judicial process due to Plaintiff's failure to disclose his litigation history. 2. The clerk be directed to close the file. At Pensacola, this 2nd day of July, 2025.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within fourteen (14) 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. A copy of objections shall be served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1) 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.