United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
NYKA O'CONNOR, D.O.C. # 199579, Plaintiff,
WARDEN JACOB COKER, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
proceeding pro se, initiated this case by submitting a civil
rights complaint, ECF No. 1, a motion requesting leave to
proceed with in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 2, and a
lengthy motion requesting a preliminary injunction “to
provide him adequate care and reasonable accommodations for
his serious health needs, disabilities, religion, etc.”
ECF No. 4. In addition, Plaintiff filed a “motion to
clarify” his motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No.
5, and a “notice and supplement to motion for
preliminary injunction.” ECF No. 6.
in forma pauperis motion asserts that Plaintiff is
incarcerated, has been for six months or more, and lacks the
ability to pay the filing fee for this case. Id. at
1-2. Plaintiff did not submit a prisoner consent form, but he
did provide a resident account summary which reveals
Plaintiff has maintained a zero balance in his account.
Id. at 4-11. Thus, Plaintiff clearly lacks the
resources to pay the filing fee for this case.
Plaintiff's litigation history is also relevant in
determining if Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff's complaint acknowledges that he has had many
cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, for failing to state
a claim, and similar reasons. ECF No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff did
not list all of those cases, stating there were “too
many to list.” Id. Nevertheless, judicial
notice is taken of Plaintiff's litigation history.
filed case number 3:17cv651-BJD-JBT in the Middle District of
Florida. That case was dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g)
on June 12, 2017, finding that Plaintiff had eleven prior
cases dismissed under the “three strikes”
provision of § 1915(g) and was not entitled to in forma
pauperis status. In this Court alone, Plaintiff previously
filed the following cases which were dismissed: (1) case
3:06cv10-RV/MD was dismissed on March 29, 2006, for failing
to state a claim; (2) case 3:06cv45-RV/EMT was dismissed on
September 22, 2006, for failing to state a claim; and (3)
case 3:08cv357-LW/WCS was dismissed on February 20, 2009,
also for failing to state a claim. Plaintiff has also
attempted to initiate other cases in this Court which were
dismissed because they were barred by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). See case # 3:09cv143-MCR-EMT; case #
4:10cv282-RH-WCS, and case # 3:13cv179-LC-EMT.
listing of prior case dismissals reveals that Plaintiff is
well aware that he is not entitled to in forma pauperis
status unless he meets the exception of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). That statute provides that a prisoner may not bring
a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
if he “has, on 3 or more occasions . . . brought an
action or appeal . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that
it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Review of Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No.
1, reveals he is not seeking to proceed based on allegations
of imminent danger. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a
multitude of separate claims against ten Defendants. The
complaint includes 610 numbered paragraphs and spans nearly
50 pages. It is not limited to a claim asserting that
Plaintiff faces imminent danger. Indeed, Plaintiff's
requests for relief demonstrate the wide-ranging issues he
seeks to bring in this one case as he requests: reasonable
accommodations, to cease discrimination, to have a referral
to specialists, to receive a therapeutic diet, to have an MRI
taken, to be given certain items for Holy Days, a referral to
a “gastro clinic, ” reconstructive nerve surgery,
to be housed alone, to have “adequate transport vans
used, ” and to require the use of video cameras when
Plaintiff's meals are served. Id. at 9, 42.
because Plaintiff has had three prior dismissals of cases or
appeals which count as “strikes, ” and he is not
brought a complaint which is limited to allegations that
Plaintiff faces imminent danger of serious physical injury,
the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, should be
denied and this action dismissed. Plaintiff is well aware
that it is insufficient to merely present a “laundry
list of injuries” that do not allege imminent danger.
O'Connor v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.,
732 Fed.Appx. 768, 770 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal
of Plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
Dismissal should be without prejudice to Plaintiff submitting
a complaint in a new case for which he pays the full $400.00
filing fee at the time of case initiation. Dupree v.
Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding
that an action must be dismissed without prejudice when an
inmate who is subject to § 1915(g) does not pay the
filing fee at the time he initiates the suit). “The
prisoner cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied
in forma pauperis status.” Id. In the
alternative, Plaintiff should be required to initiate a new
case which is limited to claims of imminent danger and
complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8 to provide a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, does not
respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2, be DENIED pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), that all other pending motions be
DENIED, and this case be DISMISSED
without prejudice to Plaintiff's refiling an
action if he simultaneously submits the $400.00 filing fee.
It is also RECOMMENDED that the Order
adopting this Report and Recommendation direct the Clerk of
Court to note on the docket that this cause was dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
 The cases listed were:
3:10-cv-1123-J-34TEM; 3:10-cv-1090-J-32JRK; and
3:10-cv-883-J-32TEM. See ECF No. 4 of case #
 The list provided is not complete, but
is sufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiff is not entitled
to in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 ...