CALI v. DEKALB COUNTY JAIL et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
SALEEBAN MAXAMETH CALI,
Georgia Department
of Corrections # 1000439372,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 1:25cv349/MW/ZCB
DEKALB COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner in Jackson, Georgia, commenced this
action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint. (Doc. 1). Upon a review of
Plaintiff’s litigation history, it is apparent this case should be dismissed
because Plaintiff is a three-striker who failed to pay the filing fee when
initiating this suit.
Under the three strikes provision, a prisoner cannot proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action if he has “on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated . . . , brought an action or appeal in a court
of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The
statute provides a narrow exception for instances where the prisoner is
Case 1:25-cv-00349-MW-ZCB Document 3 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 6

2
“under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id.; see also Dumond
v. 	Miami Dade Police Dep’t Kendall Dist., 	No. 	24-11891, 	2025 WL
2806691, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2025) (“The sole exception to the three
strikes bar is where the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury”) (cleaned up).
A prisoner who is ineligible to proceed IFP must pay the full filing
fee when the lawsuit is filed. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th
Cir. 2002). 	The Eleventh Circuit has explained that when the district
court determines that the prisoner is ineligible to proceed in forma
pauperis under § 1915(g), the proper procedure is for the district court to
dismiss the complaint without prejudice. 	Id. 	According to Dupree, a
prisoner cannot avoid dismissal by simply paying the filing fee at a later
time because the filing fee is due at the time the prisoner initiated the
suit. 	Id.; see also Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th
Cir. 2001) (stating that after three meritless suits, a “prisoner must pay
the full filing fee at the time he initiates suit”).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s litigation history on the Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database. That review has
revealed that Plaintiff (while a prisoner) previously filed at least three
Case 1:25-cv-00349-MW-ZCB Document 3 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 6

3
actions or appeals in federal courts that were dismissed as frivolous or
for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 	More
specifically:
• 	Adan v. Ga. State Prison, No. 5:14-cv-363-MTT-MSH (M.D.
Ga. Dec. 2, 2014), (Doc. 5) (dismissing complaint as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1));
• 	Adan v. All, No. 1:14-CV-01274-WSD (N.D. Ga. Nov. 19,
2014), (Doc. 17) (dismissing complaint for failure to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); and
• 	Adan v. Am. Music Rec., No. 5:14-cv-0274-MTT-MSH (M.D.
Ga. July 29, 2014), (Doc. 4) (dismissing complaint as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)).1
1 	Although Plaintiff calls himself “Saleeban Maxameth Cali” in the
present action (Doc. 1 at 1), it is apparent Plaintiff is the same individual
as the “Saleeban Adan” who filed the identified lawsuits in Georgia.
Plaintiff identified himself by his Georgia Department of Corrections
inmate 	number—1000439372—in 	both 	this 	case 	and 	the 	cases 	in
Georgia. See Adan v. Every Child., No. 1:24-CV-03531-WMR-RDC, 2024
WL 5700356, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 3, 2024) (noting that Saleeban Isse
Adan is “also known as . . . Saleeban Maxameth Cali”), adopted, 2024 WL
5699956 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2024); Ali v. Unknown, No. 1:23-CV-5117-
WMR, 2024 WL 5274645, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2024) (“[T]he Court
notes that Plaintiff’s prisoner number in this case—1000439372—is the
exact same prisoner number for Saleeban Adan in numerous cases.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00349-MW-ZCB Document 3 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 6

4
In fact, the U.S. District Courts for both the Middle District of
Georgia and the Northern District of Georgia have previously recognized
Plaintiff as a three striker who is barred from proceeding IFP:
• 	Adan v. Am. White Gov’t, No. 524CV00031TESCHW, 2024
WL 288988, at *1-2 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2024);
• 	Saleeban v. Every Child & Every Girls & Every Boys & Every
Man & Every Woman in United States, No. 1:21-CV-1410-
WMR-RDC, 2021 WL 12104826, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 14,
2021), adopted, 2021 WL 12104828 (N.D. Ga. May 10, 2021).
Because Plaintiff had three strikes when he commenced this case,
he cannot proceed IFP and should have paid the filing fee at the time of
filing. 	He failed to do so. 	The only remaining question is whether
Plaintiff’s 	factual 	allegations 	support 	a 	finding 	that 	he 	is 	“under
imminent danger of serious physical injury” as required for the exception
in § 1915(g) to apply. The answer to that question is no.
The § 1915(g) exception requires the complaint to allege imminent
danger of serious physical injury. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350
(11th Cir. 2004). The exception requires “specific, credible allegations of
imminent-danger of serious physical harm.” 	Chestnut v. Leavins, No.
Case 1:25-cv-00349-MW-ZCB Document 3 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 6

5
3:21cv827, 2021 WL 3134392, at *6 (N.D. Fla. July 2, 2021) (cleaned up),
adopted, 2021 WL 3132724 (N.D. Fla. Jully 24, 2021). A complaint must
include “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or of
a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious
physical injury.” Sutton v. Dist. Atty’s Office, 334 F. App’x 278, 279 (11th
Cir. 2009).
Here, 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	provided 	any 	plausible 	allegations 	of
imminent danger. 	Plaintiff’s complaint is riddled with nonsensical and
frivolous 	allegations, 	none 	of 	which 	support 	a 	finding 	of 	imminent
danger. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This action be 	DISMISSED without prejudice 	because
Plaintiff is not permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, and he failed to
pay the filing fee at the time he commenced this case.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 14th day of November 2025.
/s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00349-MW-ZCB Document 3 Filed 11/14/25 Page 5 of 6

6
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s 	internal 	use 	only 	and 	does 	not
control. 	An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all
other parties. 	A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:25-cv-00349-MW-ZCB Document 3 Filed 11/14/25 Page 6 of 6