LESSOR v. MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY ALAN LESSOR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:25-cv-116-MW-MJF

MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Gary Lessor has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Docs. 1, 2. The

undersigned recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiff’s motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss this case under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

I. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections

(“FDC”) housed at the Zephyrhills Correctional Institution. Doc. 1.

Plaintiff is suing Management and Training Corp―the company that

manages the Bay Correctional Facility―as well as nine corrections and

Page 1 of 6

medical officials at Bay CF. Plaintiff alleges that during his incarceration

at Bay CF in 2024, the Defendants used excessive force on Plaintiff,

deprived Plaintiff of medication, and placed Plaintiff in confinement

without justification. Id. at 6.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner is prohibited from

proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action if the prisoner previously

filed three or more actions or appeals, while incarcerated, that were

dismissed for frivolity, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 590 U.S. __, 140 S. Ct.

1721, 1723 (2022). A prisoner who is barred from proceeding in forma

pauperis must pay the filing fee at the time the prisoner initiates the

prisoner’s lawsuit, and failure to do so warrants dismissal of the case

without prejudice. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir.

2002) (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 the

inmate initiates suit); Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324

(11th Cir. 2001). The only exception is if the prisoner alleges that the

Page 2 of 6

prisoner is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g); see also Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004).

A. Plaintiff Has Accrued at Least Four “Strikes”

Plaintiff has accrued at least four strikes. Plaintiff’s qualifying

strikes include:

• Lessor v. Dean, No. 5:09-cv-463-Oc-29GRJ, 2010 WL 668268

(M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2010) (civil rights action dismissed for

failure to state a claim).

• Lessor v. King, No. 5:09-cv-507-Oc-23GRJ (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19,

2010) (civil rights action dismissed for failure to state a claim).

• Lessor v. Stanciel, No. 5:09-cv-526-Oc-17GRJ (M.D. Fla. Jan.

26, 2010) (civil rights action dismissed for failure to state a

claim).

• Lessor v. Mgmnt. & Training Corp., No. 5:25-cv-19-TKW-

MJF, 2025 WL 1208028 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2025) (civil rights

action dismissed as malicious for Plaintiff’s abuse of the

judicial process).

Plaintiff’s present complaint acknowledges these four cases. Doc. 1

at 10-11. Also, each case bears Plaintiff’s FDC inmate number, “U13017.”

Plaintiff filed the three Middle District cases while detained in the

Marion County Jail. Plaintiff filed the Northern District case while

incarcerated in the FDC. All four of Plaintiff’s strikes were entered before

he filed this lawsuit on May 13, 2025. Doc. 1.

Page 3 of 6

Because Plaintiff has accrued at least four strikes, he may not

litigate this case in forma pauperis unless he demonstrates that he is

“under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

B. Plaintiff Fails to Satisfy the Imminent-Danger Exception

To satisfy the “imminent danger” exception, “the prisoner must

show he is in imminent danger ‘at the time that he seeks to file his suit

in district court.’” Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1310–11 (11th Cir. 2021)

(quoting Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192–93 (11th Cir. 1999)).

An allegation of past danger will not invoke the exception. Medberry, 185

F.3d at 1193 (“[A] prisoner’s allegation that he faced imminent danger

sometime in the past is an insufficient basis to allow him to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to the imminent danger exception to [§

1915(g)].”).

Plaintiff’s allegations—that the Defendants used excessive force,

stopped Plaintiff’s medications, and unjustly placed Plaintiff in

confinement months ago at a prison where Plaintiff no longer is

confined—do not establish that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious

physical injury.

Page 4 of 6

Because Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis and

failed to pay the filing fee at the time he initiated this lawsuit, the

District Court must dismiss this case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). See Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully

RECOMMENDS that the District Court:

1. DENY Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, Doc. 2.

2. DISMISS this civil action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

3. DIRECT the clerk of court to close this case file.

At Panama City, Florida, this 20th day of May, 2025.

/s/ Michael J. Frank

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to the

undersigned to address preliminary matters and to

make recommendations regarding dispositive matters.

See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C.

Page 5 of 6

§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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. A party must serve a copy of any

objections on all other parties. A party who fails to

object to this 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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties also are

advised that if they dispute the accuracy of any

judicially-noticed fact, or if they otherwise wish to be

heard on the propriety of the court taking judicial

notice of that fact, they must raise this issue in an

objection to this report and recommendation.

Page 6 of 6