BALLARD
v.
WATSON
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 a plaintiff's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation, even if unintentional, warrants dismissal of the current suit.
Plaintiff Ballard, awaiting trial on state charges, sued Sheriff Watson alleging wrongful prosecution and withholding of exculpatory evidence. Ballard…
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 Withholding Exculpatory Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
James Lee Ballard is in state custody awaiting trial on child molestation charges. He has filed many federal lawsuits relating to his state case. See, e.g., Case Nos. 1:22-cv-2; 1:22-cv-8; 1:22-cv-96; 1:22-cv-98; 1:22-cv-104; 1:22-cv-106; 1:22- cv-128; 4:22-cv-264; 4:22-cv-266; 4:22-cv-267. In this one, Ballard has sued Clovis Watson, Alachua County’s Sheriff.1 Ballard contends Watson “provided a false probable cause statement intentionally . . . with [the] intent to wrongfully prosecute this defendant.” ECF No. 1 at 5. He also says Watson withheld exculpatory evidence. Id. at 6. He seeks $10 million. Id. at 7. The magistrate judge, in a joint report and recommendation for this case and one other, recommends dismissal. ECF No. 5. I have considered de novo Ballard’s
The magistrate judge addresses abstention, noting that Ballard is essentially challenging the state’s ability to prosecute him. Ballard insists he does not want to interfere with the state’s case; he merely wants compensation for the Sheriff’s wrongdoing (at least in this case). See, e.g., ECF No. 7 at 6. The magistrate judge also considered whether the Sheriff is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity,2 and whether Ballard’s claims are more properly raised in a habeas petition. I need not reach these issues, because I have determined that the suit should be dismissed if for no other reason than that Ballard failed to accurately disclose his other litigation.3 He says this was unintentional—that he only intended to make it clear he wasn’t seeking to amend his prior suit, see ECF No. 6 at 2—but he stated under oath that he filed no other state or federal cases “dealing with the same facts
Ballard sued dozens of defendants, including Sheriff Watson, before ultimately settling—in his Fourth Amended Complaint—on an assistant state attorney and public defender, plus two officers in Sheriff Watson’s office (Cail and Guzman).
ECF Nos. 1, 26 (Case No. 1:22-cv-2). That case, like this one, challenged the validity of Ballard’s arrest and pending prosecution. See ECF No. 26 at 6-7 (Case No. 1:22- cv-2) (alleging Guzman tampered with evidence and Cail knowingly omitted “key witnesses” and falsified evidence in his investigative report and “ignored major
[exculpatory] evidence[]”). The clerk will enter judgment that says, “Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to disclose prior litigation.” The clerk will then close the file. The report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated to the extent consistent with this order. SO ORDERED on July 28, 2022. s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge