WOLFE v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MATTHEW WOLFE,
D.O.C. # K77810,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:25cv426-TKW-MAF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, initiated this case on October
6, 2025, by submitting a civil rights complaint, ECF No. 1, and an in forma
pauperis motion, ECF No. 2. The in forma pauperis motion demonstrated
Plaintiff 1 lacked the resources to pay the $405.00 filing fee. However,
Plaintiff is a frequent filer, well known to this Court, and acknowledged
having “three strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 1 at 17.
Plaintiff’s motion for in forma pauperis status could not be granted unless
1 Plaintiff said she suffers “from gender dysphoria” and requested the Court “use
feminine pronouns” when referring to her. ECF No. 1 at 1. The Court has done so.
Case 4:25-cv-00426-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 9

Page 2 of 9
the factual allegations of the complaint demonstrated that Plaintiff was in
“imminent danger of serious physical injury.” ECF No. 4 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g)). 2 Because the initial complaint, ECF No. 1, did not show
imminent danger, a Report and Recommendation was entered, ECF No. 4,
to dismiss this case.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. ECF No.
5. Pursuant to Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004),
Plaintiff’s motion was granted and the Report and Recommendation
vacated. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 14, has now
been reviewed as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
First, Plaintiff has again disclosed that she has “three strikes” from
the Middle District of Florida, but Plaintiff did not provide any relevant
information concerning her prior cases. 	Id. at 9-12. Plaintiff simply
checked the “yes” box on the complaint form indicating she had filed prior
cases concerning the same facts or issues, and which either challenge her
2 The statute provides: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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, unless
the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Case No. 4:25cv426-TKW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00426-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 9

Page 3 of 9
conviction or relate to the conditions of her confinement. 	Id. at 10. Plaintiff
simply claims she has no case information because unknown prison
officials are “trashing” her legal work. ECF No. 14 at 9. Considering the
status of this case, that assertion carries no weight.
In the prior Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, judicial notice
was taken of case number 2:19cv410-SPC-NPM, which Plaintiff filed in the
Middle District. There, the court held that Plaintiff had abused the judicial
process by falsely stating in her complaint that she had not filed any other
cases in federal court relating to her imprisonment or the conditions
thereof. ECF No. 17 of case # 2:19cv410. 3 That order put Plaintiff on
notice of the importance of retaining case information and honestly
disclosing her litigation history.
Furthermore, the Report and Recommendation also noted that
Plaintiff had previously filed case number 2:18cv589-FtM-SPC-CM on
August 31, 2018; filed case number 2:18cv609-FtM-JES-CM on September
10, 2018, (which was dismissed for failure to state a claim); filed case
3 Judge Chappell concluded that Plaintiff’s actions warranted “dismissal for abuse of
the judicial process.” Id. Importantly, the Judge informed Plaintiff that the dismissal of
that case counted as Plaintiff’s “‘third strike’ under the three-strikes provision of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).” ECF No. 17, pg. 4, of case # 2:19cv410.
Case No. 4:25cv426-TKW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00426-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 9

Page 4 of 9
number 2:18cv730-FtM-SPC-NM on October 31, 2018; and also filed case
number 2:18cv731-FtM-SPC-CM on October 31, 2018, (which was also
dismissed for failure to state a claim). 	Id. 	Because that information was
provided to Plaintiff in the prior Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4,
Plaintiff could - and should - have at least included that information in the
amended complaint. She failed to do so.
Moreover, Plaintiff filed these prior cases in this Court: (1) case
number 4:21-cv-0322-MW-MAF, filed on 07/30/21, closed on 12/08/21; (2)
case number 4:23-cv-093-MW-MAF, filed on 03/07/23, closed on 07/26/23;
(3) case number 4:24-cv-014-MW-MAF, filed on 01/11/24, closed on
05/01/24; and (4) case number 4:25-cv-0325-AW-ZCB, filed on 08/01/25,
closed on 08/27/25. That fourth case was a habeas case which was
transferred to the Middle District of Florida and opened as case number
2:25cv782-KCD-DNK. Again, those cases were listed in the prior Report
and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and again, Plaintiff should have listed
them in the amended complaint. Because Plaintiff is well aware of the
need to honestly report all prior cases by previously having had a case
dismissed for such a reason, and because Plaintiff did not make the
slightest effort to disclose her litigation history, this case could be
Case No. 4:25cv426-TKW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00426-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 9

Page 5 of 9
dismissed for that reason. However, that recommendation is not made and
the Court has reviewed the factual allegations of the amended complaint.
As noted above, because Plaintiff has three strikes, she can only
proceed with in forma pauperis status if the factual allegations of the
amended complaint demonstrates that she faces “imminent danger of
serious physical injury” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The amended
complaint has been reviewed to determine if Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged imminent danger.
Despite Plaintiff’s knowledge that past harms are insufficient, 4 Plaintiff
has not detailed or explained any recent events. Instead, Plaintiff presents
conclusory assertions of the Department of Corrections’ “agenda to place
[her in harm’s way and fail to protect [her].” ECF No. 14 at 5. She claims
prison officials retaliate against “writ writers and persons convicted of sex
offenses,” and they expose her charges to try and have other inmates hurt
her. 	Id. 	Those are conclusory assertions which are insufficient to show
4 The initial Report and Recommendation advised that the “allegations must show
future harm, not past harm, to be sufficient.” ECF No. 4 at 5 (citing to Medberry v.
Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999) (stating that “a prisoner's allegation that
he faced imminent danger sometime in the past is an insufficient basis”) (quoted in
Jacoby v. Lanier, 850 F. App’x 685, 688 (11th Cir. 2021)).
Case No. 4:25cv426-TKW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00426-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 11/19/25 Page 5 of 9

Page 6 of 9
imminent danger, as explained to Plaintiff previously. 	See ECF No. 4 at 5-
6.
The same is true for her allegations which pertain to her current place
of incarceration - the Regional Medical Center [RMC]. ECF No. 14 at 6.
Plaintiff stated only that she has been “abused and molested by Sgt. Dicks,
abused by” three other persons, and “threatened” to have her “ass beat” if
she did not stop writing grievances. 	Id. 	When Plaintiff provides the name
of an alleged assailant, she presents only conclusory assertions. Plaintiff
did not provide facts to explain or otherwise support a claim of alleged
“abuse.” Further, when Plaintiff claims to have been threatened, she does
not connect that statement to a specific person. It is concluded that
Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory and are insufficient to show
that she is in danger and that prison officials will not protect her. “General
assertions . . . are ‘insufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g) absent
specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or of a pattern of
misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.’”
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks
omitted) (quoted in Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1311 (11th Cir. 2021)).
Case No. 4:25cv426-TKW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00426-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 11/19/25 Page 6 of 9

Page 7 of 9
Notably, Plaintiff alleged that when she was housed at Wakulla
Correctional Institution in December of 2023, Sgt. Ferguson “tried to kill”
her. ECF No. 14 at 5-6. While that assertion is also conclusory and
unexplained, it remains insufficient because it was nearly two years ago.
See Brown, 387 F.3d at 1350 (prisoner’s allegations must show “present
imminent danger, as opposed to a past danger, to proceed” with in forma
pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)”). Plaintiff has not alleged that
she is currently located with that official and the facts are insufficient.
Plaintiff initiated this case when she was housed at Liberty
Correctional Institution. ECF No. 1 at 11. Plaintiff is no longer there and it
would be speculation to determine when and where Plaintiff may be
transferred when her medical needs have been addressed at RMC. 	See
Daker, 999 F.3d at 1311 (finding the prisoner’s allegations “too speculative
to constitute imminent danger”). 	For all these reasons, it is recommended
that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, be
denied and this case be dismissed. 	See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234,
1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that an action must be dismissed without
prejudice when an inmate who is subject to § 1915(g) does not pay the
filing fee at the time he initiates the suit). “The prisoner cannot simply pay
Case No. 4:25cv426-TKW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00426-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 11/19/25 Page 7 of 9

Page 8 of 9
the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status.” 	Id.; see also
Daker, 999 F.3d at 1310.
Finally, Plaintiff’s address on the docket is still at Liberty Correctional
Institution. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address, although it
is noted that Plaintiff listed her address in the amended complaint at RMC.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail this Report and Recommendation to
Plaintiff at that location, but the Clerk must not update Plaintiff’s address on
the docket unless Plaintiff files a proper notice concerning her address.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. The Clerk of Court shall provide this Order and Report and
Recommendation to Plaintiff at RMC where Plaintiff is currently housed.
See ECF No. 14 at 2.
2. The Clerk must not update Plaintiff’s address on the docket unless
Plaintiff files a proper notice of change of address. 5
5 It is not the Clerk’s responsibility to review documents to confer Plaintiff’s address
is correct on the docket. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to file timely notices of change of
address whenever she is transferred or released from custody.
Case No. 4:25cv426-TKW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00426-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 11/19/25 Page 8 of 9

Page 9 of 9
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, be DENIED, that all other pending motions be
denied, and this case be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the Order adopting this Report and
Recommendation 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 November 19, 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). 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.
Case No. 4:25cv426-TKW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00426-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 11/19/25 Page 9 of 9