Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25cv2549-MW-HTC

WALTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendant.

________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Douglas Marshall Jackson, a prisoner at Walton Correctional

Institution (“Walton CI”) proceeding pro se, filed a rambling, mostly nonsensical

complaint which appears to complain about the conditions of confinement at Walton

CI. Doc. 1. After reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint and litigation history, the

undersigned recommends this case for DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

because Plaintiff is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) who did not pay the

full filing fee and is not under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner seeking to

proceed in forma pauperis cannot do so if he has filed at least three (3) cases which

have been dismissed for failure to state a claim, or as frivolous or malicious.

Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides:

In no event shall a prisoner [proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action]

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.

A prisoner who is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis must pay the

filing fee at the time he initiates his lawsuit, and his failure to do so warrants

dismissal of his case without prejudice. See Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d

1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating that, after three (3) meritless suits, a prisoner

must pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates suit). The only exception is if the

prisoner demonstrates that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical

injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff has been deemed a three-striker in both the Middle District and

Northern District of Florida. See Doc. 4 in Jackson v. Desoto Correctional

Institution Annex et al., 2:17-cv-00297 (M.D. Fla.) (“Plaintiff Douglas Marshall

Jackson has a lengthy history of abusive litigiousness and is a ‘three-strikes’

litigant”) and Doc. 14 in Jackson v. Inch, 3:21-cv-00132-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla.)

(recommending dismissal under three-strikes provision and citing cases).

Also, although Plaintiff repeatedly uses the word “imminent” in his mostly

incomprehensible pleading, nothing he claims shows he is in imminent danger of

serious physical injury. To fall within the imminent danger exception, Plaintiff’s

complaint must include “specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious

physical harm.” Hafed v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1179 (10th Cir.

2011). Allegations that “describe[] merely a hypothetical or speculative danger and

fail[] to suggest that any specific threat has been made against plaintiff” are also

insufficient. Cole v. Tifft, 2009 WL 3668094, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2009) (citing

Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (plaintiff’s “vague

allegation of a conspiracy among the defendants to beat, assault, injure, harass and

retaliate against him are … insufficient and lack the specificity necessary to show

an imminent threat of serious physical injury”). .

Here, Jackson appears to claim Walton CI is infested with black mold, which

he speculates could cause cancer. Those allegations are insufficient to show that

Plaintiff is in imminent danger of physical harm. See Cole, 2009 WL 3668094 at

*2; see also Welch v. Selsky, 2008 WL 238553, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2008)

(“[t]he imminent danger an inmate faces ... must be real, and not merely speculative

or hypothetical”). Likewise, Jackson’s complaints that he should be allowed

“organic kosher foods”, and that he is not being allowed to freely exercise his

religion, do not show he is under imminent harm of physical injury. Doc. 1 at 9.

Because Plaintiff is a three-striker who did not pay the filing fee when he filed

this action and has not shown he is under imminent danger of physical harm,

Plaintiff’s action should be dismissed. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236

(11th Cir. 2002) (holding that “the proper procedure is for the district court to

dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed

in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions of § 1915(g)” because the prisoner

“must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit”).

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:

1. This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Plaintiff

is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) who failed to pay the filing fee at the

time of suit.

2. The clerk be directed to close this file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 17th day of December, 2025.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) 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 the unobjected-to factual and

legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.