The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
LEONARDO SIMPKINS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:26-cv-246-KCD-PRL
STATE OF FLORIDA,
MICHAEL JOHNSON,
EDWARD SCOTT,
MCCATHERIAN, and
WISSINGER,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Plaintiff Leonardo Simpkins, an inmate of the Florida state penal
system, filed this action through a pro se Complaint for Violation of Civil
Rights. (Doc. 1.) Upon review of his filing, however, it is unclear what type of
action he seeks to bring. Simpkins alleges violations his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as violations of the Ku Klux
Klan Act (id. at 3–4), but he also appears to challenge his 2007 state court
conviction (id. at 4–5). As for relief, Simpkins asks the Court to invalidate his
illegal sentence and release him with a full pardon after review of his state
court case. He also requests federal habeas corpus forms stating that the state
trial court has banned him from filing. (Id. at 5.) To the extent Simpkins seeks
to pursue a civil rights action, this case is due to be dismissed without
prejudice. Simpkins has failed to pay the filing fee and is barred from
proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915
by adding the following subsection:
(g) In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Section 1915(g), commonly referred to as the “three
strikes” provision, requires this Court to consider prisoner actions dismissed
before, as well as after, the enactment of the PLRA.
This Court takes judicial notice of at least the following three cases
previously brought by Simpkins that were dismissed on the grounds that they
were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted: (1) Simpkins v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., Case No. 3:14-cv-459-MMH-PDB
(M.D. Fla.) (complaint dismissed as frivolous); (2) Simpkins v. Brown, et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-7-MMH-JK (M.D. Fla.) (complaint dismissed as frivolous) ;
and (3) Simpkins v. Andrews, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-148-MMH-PDB (M.D.
Fla.) (complaint dismissed as frivolous).
Therefore, because Simpkins has had three or more prior qualifying
dismissals, and his allegations do not warrant the imminent danger exception
to dismissal, Mitchell v. Nobles, 873 F.3d 869, 872 (11th Cir. 2017), this case is
dismissed without prejudice. Simpkins may initiate a new civil rights action
by filing a new civil rights complaint form and paying the full filing fee at the
time of filing his complaint. Alternatively, if he wishes to challenge his state
court convictions, Simpkins may do so by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the Court’s standard form.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case
without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the case.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 14, 2026.
United States District Judge
OCAP-1
C: Leonardo Simpkins, #U36009