PERRY v. PERRY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
RAYMOND PERRY,
D.O.C. # 094013,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:25-cv-447-MCR-MAF
PHILLIP E. PERRY, et. al,
Defendants.
_______________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner, submitted a civil rights complaint on
October 2, 2025 by prison mailbox rule. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the
filing fee or file a motion for in forma pauperis (IFP) status. Even if Plaintiff
had filed an IFP motion, it would not be reviewed. Plaintiff is not eligible for
IFP status because he is a “three-striker” under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (PLRA) and the complaint fails to show he is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury. Dismissal is warranted.
The PLRA prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action without
prepaying the filing fee “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 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 upon which relief may be granted,
Case 4:25-cv-00447-MCR-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
4:25-cv-447-MCR-MAF
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff swears in his complaint that he has had three
cases dismissed under that statute. ECF No. 1 at 10. However, the actual
number is higher.
Plaintiff is a frequent litigant and no stranger to this process. The Court
takes judicial notice of four of Plaintiff’s prior prisoner civil rights cases in
federal court dismissed as malicious for abuse of the judicial process: (1)
Perry v. Kapinski, Case No. 2:00-cv-164-HES (M.D. Fla. April 25, 2000); (2)
Perry v. Sloan Case No. 8:00-cv-834-EK (M.D. Fla. May 8, 2000); (3) Perry
v. Jones, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-2173 (N.D. Fla. November 19, 2018); (4)
Perry v. Jones, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-495 (N.D. Fla. April 19, 2019). All
were filed when Plaintiff was a prisoner and include his DOC inmate
number.1
Because Plaintiff has three strikes, he is not entitled to proceed without
paying the filing fee at the time of case initiation unless he alleges that he is
“under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is aware of his status as a three-striker and the requirements he must
1 Notably, Plaintiff’s current complaint again fails to truthfully and accurately disclose his
litigation history. The majority of the cases he lists are from county courts, mostly in Leon.
ECF No. 1 at 10-13. He fails to disclose any additional federal civil cases apart from the
three he lists under the three-strikes section. Id. There are at least fifty others.
Case 4:25-cv-00447-MCR-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/21/25 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
4:25-cv-447-MCR-MAF
follow because his cases have been dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g) for
decades. E.g., Perry v. Emerson et al., Case No. 2:98-cv-14254-EBD (S.D.
Fla. October 15, 1998); Perry v. Alexander, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-14022-
JEM (S.D. Fla. March 30, 2007); Perry v. Tucker, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
611-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2013). Yet Plaintiff’s latest complaint
raises the same or similar claims other courts have previously rejected. See,
e.g., Perry v. Jones, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-1015-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.
August 16, 2016) (dismissing under § 1915(g) after finding Plaintiff’s claim of
a conspiracy to illegally keep him in prison and murder him to be conclusory
and insufficient to establish imminent danger). Plaintiff again claims he is
being held against his will and is the victim of a conspiracy by various
civilians and government officials who seek to murder him. See ECF No. 1
at 5-8. He claims this has occurred between 1966 and 2025 and seeks
monetary damages. Id. at 8. Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and does not
show imminent danger.
Therefore, this case should be summarily dismissed without prejudice
because Plaintiff did not submit the filing fee at the same time the complaint
was submitted, and as a three-striker under § 1915(g), Plaintiff is not entitled
to belatedly pay the filing fee. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th
Cir. 2002).
Case 4:25-cv-00447-MCR-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/21/25 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
4:25-cv-447-MCR-MAF
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED
without prejudice, and the Order adopting this Report and
Recommendation should direct the Clerk of Court to note on the docket that
this case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on October 21, 2025.
s/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge
on appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Case 4:25-cv-00447-MCR-MAF Document 3 Filed 10/21/25 Page 4 of 4