# WRIGHT v. LYUBLANOVITS

> District Court, N.D. Florida · September 4, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10766542

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Florida
- **Decided:** September 4, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10766542

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT LEE WRIGHT III,
D.O.C. # D-U01281,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO. 4:24-cv-351-TKW-MAF
JESSICA LYUBLANOVITS and
BRYSTON FORD,
Defendants.
__________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, who is a pro se prisoner and serial litigant, submitted a civil
rights complaint, ECF No. 1, on August 30, 2024. He has not paid the filing
fee or filed a motion for in forma pauperis (IFP) status. Even if Plaintiff had
filed an IFP motion, it would not be reviewed. That is because Plaintiff is well
known to this Court as a three-striker under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA). In the past 8 months, Plaintiff has filed at least 20 cases.1

1 Judicial notice is taken of the following cases filed by Plaintiff since January 2024:
4:24-cv-00006-MW-MAF (dismissed on 3/3/24 for failure to comply with court orders);
4:24-cv-00011-AW-MAF(dismissed on 3/25/24 for failure to comply with court orders);
4:24-cv-00012-MW-MAF (dismissed on 3/20/24 as frivolous and for failure to comply
with court orders); 4:24-cv-00017-WS-MAF (dismissed on 4/9/24 as malicious and for
failure to comply with court orders; appeal dismissed on 5/17/24 for failure to pay the
filing fee); 4:24-cv-00051-AW-MAF (dismissed on 4/28/24 for failure to comply with court
orders); 4:24-cv-00060-WS-MAF (dismissed on 4/25/24 for failure to comply with court
orders); 4:24-cv-00088-MW-MAF (dismissed on 5/24/24 for failure to comply with court
orders); 4:24-cv-00107-AW-MAF (dismissed on 5/17/24 for failure to comply with court
Sometimes Plaintiff’s complaints have been on the court form as
required by the Local Rules, but sometimes they have not. This case was

initiated by the submission of a handwritten “complaint” on plain paper. If
Plaintiff used the court form, he would have had to disclose all prior cases
he has filed and inform the Court if he has accumulated “three strikes.” Such

disclosures are necessary because the PLRA prohibits a prisoner from
bringing a civil action without prepaying the filing fee “if the prisoner has, on
3 or more prior occasions…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). Judicial notice is taken that Plaintiff has had three prior cases

dismissed for reasons which count as a “strike” under § 1915(g).

orders); 4:24-cv-00108-WS-MAF (dismissed on 6/24/24 for failure to comply with court
orders); 4:24-cv-00132-WS-MJF (dismissed on 4/30/24 for failure to state a claim;
appeal dismissed on 6/17/24 for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with
court rules); 4:24-cv-00142-MW-MJF (pending order on recommended dismissal for
failure to comply with court orders filed 8/6/24); 4:24-cv-00155-WS-MAF (dismissed on
5/24/24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(g)); 4:24-cv-00212-WS-MAF (dismissed on 7/6/24
pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(g)); 4:24-cv-00235-MW-MAF (dismissed on 6/26/24
pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(g)); 4:24-cv-296-MW-MAF (dismissed on 8/22/24 pursuant
to 28 U.S.C § 1915(g)); 4:24-cv-00310-MW-MAF (pending order on recommended
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(g) filed 8/12/24); 4:24-cv-321-MCR-MAF
(pending order on recommended dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(g) filed
8/19/24); 4:24-cv-314-WS-MAF (pending order on recommended dismissal pursuant to
28 U.S.C § 1915(g) and as frivolous, with sanctions, filed 8/27/24); and 4:24-cv-320-
MCR-MJF (filed August 15, 2024).
On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed case number 4:24-cv-12-MW-MAF
in this Court. It was dismissed March 20, 2024 both as frivolous and for

failure to comply with a court order. ECF No. 11 of that case. That dismissal
counts as Plaintiff’s first strike.
Also on January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed case number 4:24-cv-17-WS-

MAF in this Court. It was dismissed on April 9, 2024, “as a shotgun pleading,
as malicious based on [Plaintiff’s] affirmative misrepresentations regarding
his litigation history, for failure to comply with court orders, and for failure to
pay the filing fee.” ECF No. 26 of that case. That dismissal counts as

Plaintiff’s second strike.
On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed case number 4:24-cv-132-WS-MJF
in this Court. It was dismissed on April 30, 2024 because Plaintiff’s complaint

failed to state a claim. ECF No. 19 at that case. That dismissal counts as
Plaintiff’s third strike.
All three cases cited above were filed while Plaintiff was a prisoner.
Therefore, because Plaintiff has three strikes, he is not entitled to proceed

without paying the filing fee at the time of case initiation unless he alleges
that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Plaintiff attempts to allege imminent danger in his complaint, ECF

No. 1, but fails.
In this case, Plaintiff seeks to sue the Clerk of Court and a Deputy Clerk
of Court for the Northern District of Florida. Id. His complaint takes issue with

a judgment in a separate case dismissed under § 1915(g), Wright v.
Jeaffreson, Case No. 4:24-cv-235-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla. June 26, 2024). Id.
at 2. Regarding the judgment, ECF No. 8 of that case, Plaintiff asserts:

“As best can be determined Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without
prejudice under the three-strikes provision of a statute and rule.
Because Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and fails to meet the
imminent danger exception. Signed by Clerk of Court Jessica J.
Lyublanovits and Deputy Clerk Bryston Ford…[t]his is an improper
statement. To the education of the Plaintiff he feels he’s in imminent
danger. The [judgment] clearly says he fails the exception of imminent
danger, as if the two people involved are coming to hurt him.”
Id. In addition to 42 U.S.C § 1983,2 Plaintiff lists the following—mostly
unintelligible—bases for his complaint: “imminent danger,” “federal report
evidence,” “civil infraction of judgment,” “digression of claim,” “for petition in
writ of total breach,” “Supreme Court Rules et seq.” Id. at 1, 2. His requested
relief is, “total breach.” Id. at 2. The complaint has no basis in law or fact, is
frivolous, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
While Plaintiff attempts to get around § 1915(g) by using the
“buzzword” of imminent danger, he cannot possibly show that he is currently
in imminent danger of serious physical injury from Defendants—a Clerk and

2 As the Defendant Clerks are federal employees, the Court construes the complaint as
a Bivens action.
Deputy Clerk—who were working in their official capacity, miles away from
Plaintiff, and entered a judgment at the direction of the District Court’s order.3

“General assertions [of imminent danger] 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.” Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1311 (11th
Cir. 2021) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff’s allegation of “feel[ing]” like
he is in imminent danger, or his own delusions that a Clerk entering a
judgment in compliance with a judicial mandate is “coming to hurt him” are

insufficient to establish an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The
nonsensical ramblings of a Plaintiff complaining about incredible and
imagined dangers does not create an imminent danger.

Even assuming Plaintiff’s claim had merit, was filed on the correct court
form, was based on appropriate law, and sought the appropriate relief,
Defendants have absolute immunity for their action. See Jenkins v. Clerk of
Ct., U.S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. of Fla., 150 F. App'x 988, 990 (11th Cir. 2005).

Plaintiff is attempting to relitigate a previously dismissed claim without

3 The Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, in 4:24-cv-235-MW-
MAF states in part, “The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff's complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g),
because Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and fails to meet the imminent danger
exception.” The Clerk entered the judgment pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 58(b).
paying the filing fee, by suing Defendants who are immune and claiming
generalized imminent danger. The instant case should be summarily

dismissed under § 1915(g), but it should also be dismissed with prejudice as
frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.4 Plaintiff, like anyone else, cannot misuse the courts with impunity.

Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1989).
RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED with
prejudice, and the Order adopting this Report and Recommendation should
direct the Clerk of Court to note on the docket that this case was dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and as frivolous, malicious, and for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C §
1915(e)(2).

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on September 4, 2024.
s/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4 The Eleventh Circuit has consistently affirmed dismissal with prejudice of frivolous
complaints. See, e.g., Broner v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA, 258 F. App'x 254, 256 (11th
Cir. 2007); Austin v. Judge, 851 F. App'x 173, 175 (11th Cir. 2021); Nails v. Franklin, 279
F. App'x 899, 901 (11th Cir. 2008); Hernandez v. Palm Beach Cnty. State Att'y, No. 23-
11024, 2023 WL 9642821, at *2 (11th Cir. Aug. 31, 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1121,
218 L. Ed. 2d 355 (2024).
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). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 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(b)(1)(C).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10766542. Public record. Not legal advice.