1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TIMOTHY SNEED,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-385-AW-MAF

MARK S. INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The magistrate judge has recommended dismissal based on Plaintiff’s failure 

to properly disclose his prior litigation. Plaintiff filed this action on a civil rights 

complaint form, which asked (among other things) whether Plaintiff had ever 

“initiated other actions in state court dealing with the same or similar facts/issues 

involved in this action.” ECF No. 1 at 3 (Question A). Plaintiff disclosed one case,

filed in October 2019. Id. The form then asked the same question regarding cases 

filed in federal court. Id. (Question B). Plaintiff answered “no.” Id. Additionally, the 

form asked whether Plaintiff had

initiated other actions (beside those listed above in Questions (A) and 

(B)) in either state or federal court that relate to the fact or manner of 

[his] incarceration (including habeas corpus petitions) or the conditions 

of [his] confinement (including civil rights complaints about any aspect 

of prison life, whether it be general circumstances or a particular 

episode, and whether it involved excessive force or some other wrong)?

Case 4:20-cv-00385-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 4
2

Id. at 4 (Question C). Plaintiff again answered “no,” and then declared under penalty 

of perjury that everything in his complaint was true. ECF No. 1 at 4, 9. But his 

disclosures were incomplete.1

The magistrate judge issued an order directing plaintiff to show cause why his 

complaint should not be dismissed based on this failure to provide correct 

information. ECF No. 4.2 Plaintiff responded, saying he misunderstood the 

questions, ECF No. 7, and the magistrate judge recommended that the case be 

dismissed “as a sanction for Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial process.” ECF No. 9 at 

8-9. Plaintiff objectsto the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, offering

two inadequate and conflicting explanations for his failure to disclose. ECF No. 10.

First, he again says he misunderstood the question and thought it sought information 

only about cases directly relating to the precise issue he now pursues. As the 

magistrate judge correctly points out, the question was not complicated and clearly 

 

1 Although Plaintiff’s amended complaint did list additional cases (including 

one dismissal he acknowledges counted as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915), the 

magistrate judge identified multiple additional cases that should have been 

disclosed. At a minimum, Plaintiff should have disclosed two habeas petitions filed 

in the Southern District of Florida in 2005 and 2014. See ECF No. 9 at 6 (citing 

Sneed v. State of Florida, No. 1:05-cv-22903 (S.D. Fla. 2005); Sneed v. State of 

Florida, 1:14-cv-20605 (S.D. Fla. 2014). 

2 Additionally, the order required Plaintiff to either amend his in forma 

pauperis motion or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff did amend his in forma pauperis

motion, ECF No. 5, which the magistrate judge granted, ECF No. 8. 

Case 4:20-cv-00385-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 4
3

sought a much broader category of cases.

3 And as the magistrate judge also points 

out, Plaintiff is an experienced litigator, having filed many cases, so the suggestion 

that he misunderstood that question is not well taken. Second, Plaintiff says he did 

not disclose all of his cases because he did not have the details on all of them because 

he didn’t have access to the law library. Of course, if he understood the question to 

require no disclosure of his other cases, he would have no need for the law library 

or his other records. In other words, his second excuse undermines his first. And 

while it is certainly plausible—given his volume of litigation—that he could not 

recall details of every action he ever filed, that would not justify the answer he 

provided. Instead, he could have (and should have) indicated that he has filed other 

cases and provided whatever detail he did have.

4

In short, I agree with the magistrate 

judge that Plaintiff has not justified his initial failure. Additionally, I find there is no

lesser sanction available that would adequately correct Plaintiff’s misconduct. See

Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Washington v. 

 

3 Although Questions A and B asked only about cases “dealing with the same 

or similar facts/issues,” Question C asked about a much broader category of cases 

and specifically asked Plaintiff to list cases not covered by the first two questions.

4 Cf. Harris v. Warden, 498 F. App’x 962, 965 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Although 

Harris asserted in his motion for the district court to take notice of his prior actions 

that he did not have access to his court files or the online docket, he made no attempt 

to disclose any information regarding his prior cases in his complaints, simply 

writing or checking ‘No’ or ‘Not Applicable’ under all of the relevant questions. 

Thus, the district court’s finding of Harris’s affirmative misrepresentation was not 

clearly erroneous.”).

Case 4:20-cv-00385-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 10/23/20 Page 3 of 4
4

Mollroy, No. 5:09cv35-RH-MD, 2009 WL 1404729, at *1 (N.D. Fla. May 19, 2009) 

(“If word got around the prisons that inaccurate or incomplete information could be 

provided with no effective sanction, the form would serve little purpose. And word 

does get around the prisons.”). 

Having considered the September 23, 2020, Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 9), and having considered de novo the issues raised in Plaintiff’s 

objections (ECF No. 10), I now accept the Report and Recommendation and agree 

the case should be dismissed. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case 

is dismissed without prejudice for abuse of the judicial process.” The clerk will then 

close the file. 

SO ORDERED on October 23, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00385-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 10/23/20 Page 4 of 4