HARMON

v.

STEGEMANN

M.D. Fla. | 2020-06-10

No. 2:20-cv-375

2020 WL 3038282 District Court, M.D. Florida (2020) Positive Treatment

Cited by 1 case

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the PLRA's three-strikes rule and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed a pro se complaint for violation of civil rights and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The court found the plaintiff ha…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Prison Litigation Reform Act Of 1995 (Plra) Three Strikes Rule In Forma Pauperis (Ifp) Proceedings Free Exercise Of Religion

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prison Litigation Reform Act Of 1995 (Plra) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

FNU STEGEMANN and CHARLOTTE COUNTY JAIL,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER1

Plaintiff David Lee Harmon is confined in the Charlotte County Jail.2 Harmon filed a pro se Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 28, 2020, alleging his First Amendment free exercise of religion rights are being violated. (Doc. 1). Harmon moves to proceed in forma pauperis on his Complaint. (Doc. 5). Because the Court finds Harmon barred from proceeding in this action informa pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court dismisses this action without prejudice. “To help staunch a ‘flood of nonmeritorious’ prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the threestrikes rule.” Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, 2020 WL 3038282, at *2 (U.S. June 8, 2020) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007)). The rule prohibits a prisoner from bringing a suit informa pauperis if he

• Case No. 2:20-cv-155-FtM-JES-MRM, order dated April 22, 2020 dismissing complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

• Case No. 2:20-cv-165-FtM-JES-MRM, order dated April 15, 2020 dismissing complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2);

• Case No. 2:20-cv-179-SPC-NPM, order dated April 2, 2020 dismissing complaint for abuse of judicial process and under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and

• Case No. 2:20-cv-293-FtM-SPC-NPN, order dated May 15, 2020 dismissing complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Complaint does not allege that Harmon qualifies for the “sole exception” of imminent danger to a serious physical injury to overcome the three strikes bar. Mitchell v. Nobles, 873 F. 3d 869, 872 (11th Cir. 2017). If Plaintiff wishes to prosecute his claim, he must file his complaint in a new action accompanied by the $400.00 filing fee. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment, terminate any pending motions and close this file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 10th day of June 2020.

Lhe Ohl otrl ke 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. 2 Even if Harmon is a pretrial detainee, he is considered a prisoner for purposes of review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Id. § 1915A(c). has had three or more suits “dismissed on the grounds that [the suits were] frivolous, malicious, or failed[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “A dismissal of a suit for failure to state a claim counts as a strike, whether or not with prejudice.” Lomax, 2020 WL 3038282, at *5. The Court takes judicial notice that before bringing this action, Plaintiff had the following suits dismissed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, each which qualify as a strike under § 1915(g): • Case No. 2:20-cv-154-FtM-TPB-MRM, order dated May 19, 2020 dismissing amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Harmon v. Stegemann, 2020 WL 3038282 (M.D. Fla. 2020)

…es this action without prejudice. “To help staunch a ‘flood of nonmeritorious’ prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three- strikes rule.” Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, 2020 WL 3038282, at *2 (U.S. June 8, 2020) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007)). The rule prohibits a prisoner from bringing a suit informa pauperis if he 1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PA…

1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007)
Mitchell v. Warden, Nobles, Warden Care and Treatment, Mark G. Woods, Medical Director, J. Hendricks, 873 F.3d 869 (11th Cir. 2017)
Harmon v. Stegemann, 2020 WL 3038282 (M.D. Fla. 2020)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw