The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MARCO THONY CADEJUSTE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 4:26-cv-205-TKW-MJF
J. DEAN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of this case under the “three-
strikes statute,” 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). See Doc. 4. Plaintiff filed an objection, arguing
that one of the prior cases cited by the magistrate judge—S.D.1 Fla. Case No. 1:25-
cv-26355—does not count as a strike because that case was dismissed on “shotgun
pleading” grounds. See Doc. 5.
The Eleventh Circuit has held that a case counts as a strike even if the
dismissal order does not specifically state that the complaint was dismissed because
it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim so long as the dismissing court
“signals” that the case was dismissed on one of those grounds. Wells v. Brown, 58
F.4th 1347, 1359 (11th Cir. 2023). “The signal could include, for example, some
1 This case and one of the others cited by the magistrate judge were identified as having
been filed in the Middle District, but they were actually filed in the Southern District.
statement that the dismissal was based on rule 12(b)(6), that the allegations did not
plausibly state a claim, that the complaint failed to give a short and plain statement
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief as required by rule 8, or that the
complaint fell short under [Twombly and Iqbal].” Id. (emphasis added).
Here, the dismissal order in challenged case stated that the operative
complaint “specifically violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”
because it “is not ‘short and plain’ nor ‘simple, concise, and direct’ and fails to show
the Court that Plaintiff ‘is entitled to relief.’” S.D. Fla. Case No. 1:25-cv-26355, ECF
No. 15, at 6 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1)) (emphasis added). That is a clear
signal that the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Poole v. Bradshaw,
2024 WL 1675304, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2024) (finding that dismissal on shotgun
pleadings grounds counts as a strike). Thus, the magistrate judge correctly
determined that the case counted as a “strike.”
Because Plaintiff is a “three-striker,” he is barred from proceeding in forma
pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g). That exception does not apply here because the claim asserted in the
complaint is based on a past incident of mistreatment, not ongoing mistreatment.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and
incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED,
and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice under the “‘three-strikes statute,” 28
U.S.C. §1915(g).
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close
the case file.
DONE AND ORDERED this Ist day of June, 2026.
fe
T.KENT WETHERELL,I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3