Anthony Sam Ladd v. Escambia County Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION ANTHONY SAM LADD, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:26-cv-533-TKW-HTC ESCAMBIA COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. / ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5). No objections were filed.1 Plaintiff did file a document titled “Amended Litigation History” (Doc. 6) in which he listed numerous cases that were not listed in response to the litigation history question on the complaint form. That filing is not sufficient to avoid dismissal of the complaint because “allowing Plaintiff to [amend his] complaint at this point to add the case[s] that he failed to list in response to the litigation history question on the complaint form would not be in the interests of justice.”

Kendrick v. Dixon, 2022 WL 3030543, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2022); see also Merritt v. Dep’t of Corr., 2020 WL 6703794, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2020) (rejecting inmate’s argument that he should be allowed to amend his complaint to disclose cases that he previously omitted from his litigation history because “allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint at this point would amount to no penalty for his inexcusable failure to disclose his litigation history and would not serve as a deterrent to Plaintiff and others from falsely answering the questions on the civil rights complaint form”); Easley v. Inch, 2019 WL 3774617, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2019) (denying inmate’s motion to amend complaint that was filed contemporaneously with his objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation because “it would make a mockery of the judicial process if a plaintiff was allowed to wait until after the magistrate ruled to fully disclose his or her litigation history”).

Upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to fully disclose his litigation history as required by the court-mandated complaint form. See McNair v. Johnson, 141 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2025).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under the Court’s inherent authority based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2026.

Tho © fe T.KENT WETHERELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2