WILLIAMS
v.
DIXON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the case should be dismissed because the claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the plaintiff failed to fully disclose his litigation history.
Plaintiff filed a case that was reviewed by a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal. Plaintiff objected to the recommendation.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tolling Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) and Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 10). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the motion 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 because (1) the claims are barred by the statute of limitations and (2) Plaintiff failed to fully disclose his litigation history. With respect to the first issue, Plaintiff suggests in his objection that there might be a "tolling provision" that applies because Defendant's alleged conduct was criminal, but the Court is not aware of any statute or rule (and Plaintiff has not cited one) that would have tolled the statute of limitations on the claims in this case for more than a decade. With respect to the second issue, Plaintiff argues in his objection that he was not required to disclose his federal habeas petition challenging his state conviction because that was a criminal case, but that argument is unpersuasive because litigation history question on the complaint form clearly required Plaintiff to disclose cases "challenging [his] conviction." Doc. 1 at 17 (§VIII.C); see also Kendrick v. Inch, 2021 WL 2623215, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 25, 2021) (rejecting prisoner's argument that his complaint should not be dismissed because the habeas cases he failed to disclose were “criminal" cases since “the civil rights complaint form specifically required [the prisoner] to list 'any other lawsuits in federal court challenging [his] conviction' "), aff'd sub nom. Kendrick v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 2022 WL 2388425 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. This case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) because it is barred by the statute of limitations and because Plaintiff did not fully disclose his litigation history.
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file.
Case No. 3:23cv24731-TKW-HTC
DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2024.
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case No. 3:23cv24731-TKW-HTC
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Dixon (N.D. Fla. 2024)…use that was a criminal case, but that argument is unpersuasive because litigation history question on the complaint form clearly required Plaintiff to disclose cases "challenging [his] conviction." Doc. 1 at 17 (§VIII.C); see also Kendrick v. Inch, 2021 WL 2623215, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 25, 2021) (rejecting prisoner's argument that his complaint should not be dismissed because the habeas cases he failed to disclose were “criminal" cases since “the civil rights complaint form specifically required [the prisone…
-
Brown v. Foskey (N.D. Fla. 2024)…ar arguments have been rejected in prior cases. See, e.g., Williams v. Dixon, 2024 WL 552134 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2024); Allen v. Santiago, 2022 WL 1284821 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2022), aff'd, 2023 WL 5745494 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2023); Kendrick v. Inch, 2021 WL 2623215 (N.D. Fla. June 25, 2021), aff'd sub nom. Kendrick v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 2022 WL 2388425 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022); Johnson v. Burch, 2019 WL 4596569 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2019). The Court also did not overlook that Plaintiff requested “an o…
-
Tribble v. Securus (N.D. Fla. 2023)…equired screening even though Plaintiff paid the filing fee. See Thompson v. Hicks, 213 F. App’x 939, 942 (11th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s omitting his litigation history, see ECF No. 14 at 8-9, warrants dismissal under § 1915A(b)(1). Kendrick v. Inch, 2021 WL 2623215, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 25, 2021), aff’d sub nom, Kendrick v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2022 WL 2388425 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022). The report and recommendation (ECF No. 14) is adopted and incorporated into this order. The objections (ECF No. 15) ar…
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. Quinn, 2023 WL 5745494 (N.D. Fla. 2025)
- Williams v. Dixon (N.D. Fla. 2024)