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-247-AW-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. Prior to

filing this civil action, Plaintiff had incurred three “strikes.” Because

Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g), and he did not pay the filing fee at the time he commenced this

civil action, the District Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this case under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g).

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 eight corrections and

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

at Bay CF, the Defendants used excessive force on Plaintiff, deprived

Plaintiff of medication, and placed Plaintiff in confinement without

justification. Id. at 9–10.

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. 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 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 Three Strikes

District Judge Mark Walker previously determined that Plaintiff

has accrued at least three strikes. Lessor v. Management and Training

Corporation, No. 5:25-cv-116-MW-MJF, Order of Dismissal, ECF No. 5

(N.D. Fla. June 18, 2025). Plaintiff’s qualifying strikes include:

• Lessor v. Dean, No. 5:09-cv-463-Oc-29-GRJ, (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-23-GRJ (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-17-GRJ (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26,

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

Plaintiff’s present complaint acknowledges that Plaintiff initiated these

three cases. Doc. 1 at 14. 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 incurred these strikes

before he commenced the instant case on September 4, 2025. Doc. 1.

B. Plaintiff Fails to Satisfy the Imminent-Danger Exception

Because Plaintiff has incurred at least three 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).

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 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.

Because Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, the

District Court must deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss this case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §

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

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 rights action without prejudice under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

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

At Pensacola, Florida on September 10, 2025

/s/ Michael J. Frank

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to a magistrate

judge 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. § 636(b); 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 and does not

control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its

objections upon 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. The parties also are advised that if they

dispute the accuracy of any facts taken from judicially-

noticed documents, or if they otherwise wish to be

heard on the propriety of the court taking judicial

notice of those facts, they must raise this issue in an

objection to this report and recommendation.