HART v. SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
RANDY A. HART,
FDOC Inmate No. 075432,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:26cv3850/AW/ZCB
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections
(FDOC). 	He filed this pro se civil rights lawsuit against the FDOC,
Walton Correctional Institution, and the FDOC Secretary. (Doc. 1).1
Upon 	review 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	litigation 	history, 	the 	Court 	has
determined that he is a three-striker. This means that he is ineligible to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and was required to pay the filing fee
upon initiating this suit. 	Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, so for that
reason, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
1 The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida transferred
Plaintiff’s complaint to this Court. (Docs. 5, 6).
Case 3:26-cv-03850-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 8

2
I. 	Discussion
Under the three strikes provision, a prisoner cannot proceed 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 “under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” Id.; see also Daker v. Bryson, 784 F. App’x 690, 692 (11th
Cir. 2019) (explaining that the “sole exception to the three strikes bar is
where the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury”).
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
Case 3:26-cv-03850-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 8

3
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.2 That review has
revealed that Plaintiff (while a prisoner) previously filed at least three
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:
• 	Hart v. Secretary, 5:16cv362-WTH-PRL (M.D. Fla. Apr. 3,
2018) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6));
• 	Hart v. United States, 1:16cv21889-FAM (S.D. Fla. July 29,
2016) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii));
2 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to “judicially notice a fact
that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately
and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).
Case 3:26-cv-03850-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 8

4
• 	Hart 	v. 	Hays, 	1:16cv21395-UU 	(S.D. 	Fla. 	May 	10, 	2016)
(dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii));
• 	Hart v. Marlow, 1:15cv21257-DPG (S.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2015)
(dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with
court orders and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); and
• 	Hart v. State of Florida, 8:13cv2533-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla. Oct
4, 2013) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous under §
1915(e)(2)).3
In fact, this Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida have previously recognized Plaintiff as a three striker
who is barred from proceeding IFP:
• 	Hart v. Dudley, No. 3:25cv1377/MCR/ZCB (N.D. Fla. Jan. 9,
2026);
• 	Hart v. Warden, No. 3:24cv486/LC/ZCB (N.D. Fla. Nov. 8,
2024);
3 Plaintiff identified himself with FDOC inmate #075432 in his pleadings
in those cases.
Case 3:26-cv-03850-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 05/20/26 Page 4 of 8

5
• 	Hart v. Davis, No. 3:24cv141/LC/ZCB (N.D. Fla. Apr. 15,
2024);
• 	Hart v. Davis, No. 3:23cv24653/TKW/ZCB (N.D. Fla. Dec. 21,
2023);
• 	Hart v. Davis, No. 3:20cv5587/LC/EMT (N.D. Fla. July 7,
2021);
• 	Hart v. Secretary, No. 4:18cv411/MW/MJF (N.D. Fla. Jan. 17,
2019);
• 	Hart v. Collins, No. 4:18cv339/MW/CAS (N.D. Fla. Dec. 14,
2018);
• 	Hart v. Turner, No. 1:16cv22463-KMW (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26,
2016);
• 	Hart v. Secretary, No. 1:16cv23556-UU (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26,
2016); and
• 	Hart v. Secretary, No. 2:16cv14357-DMM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15,
2016).
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
Case 3:26-cv-03850-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 05/20/26 Page 5 of 8

6
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.
3:21cv827, 2021 WL 3134392, at *6 (N.D. Fla. July 2, 2021) (cleaned up),
adopted, 2021 WL 3132724 (N.D. Fla. July 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’s 	complaint 	has 	not 	provided 	any 	plausible
allegations of imminent danger. Instead, in conclusory fashion, Plaintiff
merely cites § 1915(g) and states he “is now in imminent danger of serious
physical injury by know[n] gang members and Muslims.” 	(Doc. 1 at 2).
No specific factual allegations are provided, making it entirely unclear
how Plaintiff is in danger and who is causing the danger.
Case 3:26-cv-03850-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 05/20/26 Page 6 of 8

7
As such, Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory reference to § 1915(g) is
insufficient to invoke the three-strikes exception under that statute. See
Sutton, 334 F. App’x at 279 (concluding that “general assertions” are
insufficient 	to 	invoke 	§ 	1915(g)’s 	exception 	“absent 	specific 	fact
allegations 	of 	ongoing 	serious 	physical 	injury, 	or 	of 	a 	pattern 	of
misconduct 	evidencing 	the 	likelihood 	of 	serious 	physical 	injury”).
Because Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient under § 1915(g), dismissal
without prejudice is appropriate.
II. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This action be DISMISSED without prejudice, under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee when he
commenced this case.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida this 20th day of May 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:26-cv-03850-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 05/20/26 Page 7 of 8

8
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 3:26-cv-03850-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 05/20/26 Page 8 of 8