Thomas v. Madison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 26-20071-CIV-SANCHEZ
GENTLE THOMAS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM MADISON,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, that is, his Prisoner Request to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying the Full
Filing Fee. 	ECF 	No. 3. 	For 	the reasons 	more fully 	discussed 	in 	the Order 	entered
contemporaneously with this Report and Recommendation, see ECF No. 4, the Plaintiff’s motion
to proceed in forma pauperis was denied due to Plaintiff’s non-compliance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). 	Specifically, Plaintiff ran afoul of § 1915(g)’s three-strikes rule because he had
previously filed at least three civil cases while incarcerated that were dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. See ECF No. 4 at 2.
In such circumstances, the Eleventh Circuit has explained that:
[T]he proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without
prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g). 	The prisoner cannot simply pay the
filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status. He must pay the filing fee at
the time he initiates the suit.
Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). 	Thus, because this case must be
dismissed at its inception and because the undersigned lacks jurisdiction to enter a dispositive order
dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, this case was reassigned to a district judge, and the undersigned
is contemporaneously submitting this Report and Recommendation recommending that the
Case 1:26-cv-20071-AHS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, 	the 	undersigned 	RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS 	that 	Plaintiff’s
complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this case be CLOSED.
Within fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of this Report and Recommendation, the
parties shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the
assigned United States District Judge. 	Failing to file timely objections will bar a de novo
determination by the District Judge of any issue addressed in the Report and Recommendation,
will constitute a waiver of a party’s “right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based
on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” and will only allow appellate review of the district
court order “for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 	11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir.
1989); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th
Cir. 2020).
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 14th day of
January 2026.
___________________________________
EDUARDO I. SANCHEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: 	Gentle Thomas, Jr., pro se (Via U.S. Mail)
Case 1:26-cv-20071-AHS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 2 of 2