HATCHER v. DENMARK et al

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MARK EUGENE HATCHER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:26-cv-176-TKW/MJF
QUANTASHA DENMARK, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Mark Eugene Hatcher has filed a complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Docs. 1, 2. Because Plaintiff has incurred three “strikes” and is barred by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis, the District Court
should dismiss this case.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections
(“FDC”) who currently is confined at the Florida State Prison. Doc. 1.
Plaintiff alleges that, while the FDC incarcerated him at the Taylor
Correctional Institution, Defendants violated the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments by depriving him of bedding and all clothing other than his
underwear. Id. at 7.
Case 4:26-cv-00176-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
D ISCUSSION
Under the so-called “three-strikes rule” in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a
prisoner is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis if the prisoner
previously filed three or more actions that were dismissed for frivolity,
maliciousness, or failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Lomax
v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020). A prisoner who is barred
from proceeding in forma pauperis must pay the filing fee at the time he
initiates his lawsuit, and failure to do so warrants dismissal of his case
without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002)
(noting that a “prisoner must pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates
suit”) (quoting Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.
2001)).
Plaintiff has incurred at least three strikes under section 1915(g):
• 	Hatcher v. Makarowski, No. 3:23-cv-1302-HES-LLL, ECF No.
3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2024) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint
for failure to state a plausible claim for relief);
• 	Hatcher 	v. 	State, 	No. 3:24-cv-1017-MMH-SJH, 	ECF 	No. 4
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2025) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for
failure to state a plausible claim for relief); and
• 	Hatcher 	v. 	Cardenas, 	et 	al., 	No. 3:25-cv-1098-WWB-PDB,
ECF No. 4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2025) (dismissing Plaintiff’s
complaint for failure to state a plausible claim for relief).
Case 4:26-cv-00176-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Indeed, pursuant to the “three-strikes” rule, two federal courts already
have dismissed two other cases Plaintiff had filed.1
Because Plaintiff has incurred at least three strikes, Plaintiff may
not litigate this case in forma pauperis unless he shows that he is “under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Brown
v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2004). To fall within this
exception, 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	must 	include 	“specific, 	credible
allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm.” Hafed v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1179 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotation
omitted). General allegations are insufficient to invoke section 1915(g)’s
exception. See Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff alleges only that he suffered mistreatment in the past—in
2024 and 2025. Doc. 1 at 10, 25–27. Also, Plaintiff does not allege that
the 	mistreatment 	occurred at 	his current 	abode—the 	Florida State
Prison. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that FDC employees mistreated him at
the Taylor Correctional Institution. Id. at 7. Thus, Plaintiff fails to allege
that he is in “imminent” danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.
1 See Hatcher v. Warden, et al., No. 8:26-cv-246-SDM-LSG, ECF No. 4
(M.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2026); Hatcher v. Hardee Corr. Inst., et al., No. 8:26-
cv-217-JLB-CPT, ECF No. 4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2026)
Case 4:26-cv-00176-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 05/05/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
2. 	DIRECT 	the clerk of the court to terminate all pending
motions and to close this case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 5th day of May 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to address dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc.
R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). 	Objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen days.
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. The parties also
are advised that if they dispute the accuracy of any
facts taken from 	judicially-noticed documents, they
must raise this issue in an objection to this report and
recommendation.
Case 4:26-cv-00176-TKW-MJF Document 9 Filed 05/05/26 Page 4 of 4