Richard Earl Hensarling, Jr. v. Malik Melton, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION RICHARD EARL HENSARLING, JR, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1719-TKW-HTC MALIK MELTON, et al., Defendants. / ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 5). No objections were filed, but Plaintiff did file a document titled “Premission [sic] to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” (Doc. 6) in which he took issue with the magistrate judge’s determination that he did not truthfully disclose his litigation history.1 The Court will treat Plaintiff’s post-R&R filing as an objection to the R&R and review the issue that it raised de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully This filing also expressed confusion about the status of the case because Plaintiff received the R&R and the order authorizing him to proceed in forma pauperis the same day, but the Court sees no need for clarification because the R&R clearly advised Plaintiff of his right to file objections to the R&R and the timeframe for doing so. disclose his litigation history. See McNair v. Johnson, 141 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2025).

The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s assertion in his post-R&R filing that he did not “lie” about his litigation history because he “duly * noted that he was uncertain – unaware” of his prior cases, but he made no such representation on the complaint form. And even if he had, that would not save this case from dismissal because it is not enough for Plaintiff to claim that he is “uncertain – unaware” of the prior cases that he filed because he had an obligation to keep at least the case numbers for his prior cases. If, for whatever reason, Plaintiff did not have that information, he should have gotten it from the appropriate clerk’s offices before filing a new suit. See Gomez v. Key, 2024 WL 3014629, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 14, 2024) (citing Torres v. Geo Grp. Inc., 2021 WL 75764, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2021)).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s R&R 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 6th day of April, 2026.

i Wow * T. KENT WETHERELL, I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3