WILSON v. HENDERSON et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
BARRINGTON WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:26cv1653-MW-HTC
HENDERSON, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Barrington Wilson, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, has filed a civil rights complaint alleging that on January 5, 2022, the
Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights during two use of force incidents.
Doc. 1. However, Wilson’s claims are barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
Thus, this 	case should 	be DISMISSED with 	prejudice 	under 28 	U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
I. 	Background
Wilson sues seven (7) Santa Rosa Correctional Institution employees: (1)
Lieutenant M. Lowe; (2) Sergeant Nicholas; (3) Officer Henderson; (4) Officer R.
Goss; (5) Officer K. Young; (6) Officer G. Johnson; and (7) Officer Jane Doe. His
complaint contains the following factual allegations, which are accepted as true for
purposes of this Report and Recommendation.
Case 3:26-cv-01653-MW-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1653-MW-HTC
On January 5, 2022, Officer Henderson led an extraction team to Wilson’s
cell “for no reason.” 	The team consisted of Lieutenant Lowe, Sergeant Nicholas,
Officer Goss, Officer Young, and Officer Johnson; Officer Jane Doe was also
present and operated a handheld camera. Henderson falsely told Lowe that Wilson
refused to comply with an order to run his fingers through his hair. Lowe ordered
the cell extraction team to enter Wilson’s cell. 	After the team handcuffed and
shackled Wilson, they punched and kicked him, and slammed his face into the floor,
even though he never put up any resistance.
Eventually, Wilson was taken to the infirmary and placed in a self-harm
observation status (“SHOS”) cell. However, Young, Goss, Nicholas, and Henderson
entered the SHOS cell and began punching and kicking Wilson again. 	After the
assault ended, Wilson was taken to see a physician; x-rays and photos were taken of
Wilson’s face, and he was transported to a hospital, where a CT scan showed his ribs
were broken. His face and head remained bruised and swollen for about 14 days.
Based on the foregoing, Wilson alleges the Defendants violated the Eighth
Amendment either by using excessive force or failing to intervene to stop the
excessive force. As relief, he seeks damages and declaratory relief.
II. 	Legal Standard
Because Wilson is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and seeking relief
from government employees, the Court must dismiss his complaint, or any portion
Case 3:26-cv-01653-MW-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1653-MW-HTC
thereof, if it determines it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). A dismissal on statute-
of-limitations grounds is proper when it is apparent from the face of the complaint
that the claim is time-barred. 	Wainberg v. Mellichamp, 93 F.4th 1221, 1224 (11th
Cir. 2024).
III. 	Wilson’s claims are barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
In Florida, claims brought under § 1983 are subject to a four-year statute of
limitations. See Ellison v. Lester, 275 F. App’x 900, 901-02 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he
four-year statute of limitations under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3) applies to § 1983 claims
arising in Florida.”). The statute of limitations on a § 1983 claim begins to run when
“the facts which would support a cause of action are apparent or should be apparent
to a person with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights.” Van Poyck v. McCollum,
646 F.3d 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173
(11th Cir. 2008)).
Here, Wilson’s excessive force and failure to intervene claims are based on
events that occurred on January 5, 2022. A reasonable person would have known
their rights were violated on that date, so the statute of limitations began running
Case 3:26-cv-01653-MW-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1653-MW-HTC
immediately.1 See Baker v. City of Hollywood, 391 F. App’x 819, 821 (11th Cir.
2010) (finding excessive force and failure to intervene claims accrued when plaintiff
“allegedly was beaten at the holding facility” because he “knew the facts underlying
these claims then”). However, Wilson did not file his complaint until March 2, 2026,
the date he handed it over to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (under the prison mailbox rule, a document submitted by a
pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison officials for
mailing). 	Because Wilson filed this action more than four years after his claims
accrued, the claims are untimely and subject to dismissal. See Baker, 391 F. App’x
at 821 (finding district court correctly concluded excessive force and failure to
intervene claims were barred by the statute of limitations when plaintiff filed his
§ 1983 action more than four years after the alleged beating).
1 Even assuming Wilson did not know the names of the Defendants at the time of the alleged
misconduct, that would not impact the accrual date for his claims. 	See Nicholson v. Nathan
Smoots, S.A., 2023 WL 2401329, at *4 (11th Cir. 2023) (concluding claims accrued on March 17,
2015, because: (1) plaintiff “was aware that the deputy detained him and that FBI agents seized a
saliva sample from him” on that date; (2) “[h]e could have filed an action then, because that is
when he knew he had suffered an injury and knew who inflicted that injury”; and (3) “[t]hat
[plaintiff] did not know the names of all the officers involved does not mean he could not have
filed his suit, as evidenced by his filing the initial complaint without knowing two of the
defendants’ names”); see also Merritt v. Collinsworth, 2023 WL 2541137, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Feb.
27, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 2539020 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2023)
(“[E]ven without knowing Defendants’ names, Merritt could have filed this action timely against
‘Unknown Transport Officer #1’ and ‘Unknown Transport Officer #2,’ and later sought discovery
to learn Defendants’ proper names.”).
Case 3:26-cv-01653-MW-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1653-MW-HTC
IV. 	Conclusion
It is apparent from the face of Wilson’s complaint that his Eighth Amendment
claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 	And because Wilson’s claims are
time-barred, he could not amend the complaint to state a viable claim. Thus, giving
him an opportunity to amend would be futile, and this case should be dismissed with
prejudice. See Cornelius v. Bank of America, NA, 585 F. App’x 996, 1000 (11th Cir.
2014) (“While a pro se litigant generally must be given at least one opportunity to
amend his complaint, a district judge need not allow an amendment where
amendment would be futile.”) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That 	this 	case 	be 	DISMISSED 	with 	prejudice 	under 	28 	U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) due to Wilson’s failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 10 th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01653-MW-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/10/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv1653-MW-HTC
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) 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 its objections upon
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 the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 3:26-cv-01653-MW-HTC Document 5 Filed 03/10/26 Page 6 of 6