WROMAS v. CROMARTIE et al

Filing 15

ORDER. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Clerk shall close the case file. Signed by JUDGE T KENT WETHERELL II on 05/09/2022. (alb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
KEITH JAMES WROMAS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:22-cv-33-TKW-MJF

REGINALD CROMARTIE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 12). Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Object to Doc. #12 and
Request to Reconsider” (Doc. 14), which the Court construes as an objection to the
Report and Recommendation.
The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by
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
as an abuse of the judicial process due to Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his
litigation history.
The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that he simply “forgot” to list
one of his prior lawsuits. However, even if that is true, it does not change the fact
that Plaintiff certified under penalty of perjury that his answers to the litigation
Page 1 of 3

history questions on the civil rights complaint form were true and correct. The Court
cannot simply allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint listing the omitted case
because that would not be an adequate sanction or deterrent. See Doc. 12 at 9-10;
Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App'x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he district court was
correct to conclude that to allow [the plaintiff] to then acknowledge what he should
have disclosed earlier would serve to overlook his abuse of the judicial process.”);
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”).
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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

3.

The Clerk shall close the case file.

Page 2 of 3

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2022.

T. Kent Wetherell, II
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3