Prummell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

RYAN KEITH WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:26-cv-483-KCD-NPM

BILL PRUMMELL, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff Ryan Keith Williams, an inmate of the Florida penal system,

initiated this action by a filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (Doc. 1.) He alleges that he was falsely imprisoned, “wrongfully

sentenced,” and denied medical care at the Charlotte County Jail and the

Hamilton Correctional Institution. (Id. at 4-5). Williams has not paid the filing

fee. Instead, he seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). But because he is

barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding as a pauper, the complaint

is dismissed without prejudice.

Under § 1915(g), a prisoner cannot proceed in forma pauperis if “on 3 or

more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, [he]

brought an action or appeal in a [federal] court . . . that was dismissed on the

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state claim upon which relief

may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). And “[a] dismissal of a suit for failure to

state a claim counts as a strike, whether or not with prejudice.” Lomax v. Ortiz-

Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1727 (2020).

The Court takes judicial notice that Williams, while incarcerated, has

previously had three or more qualifying dismissals. Each of the following cases

was dismissed for failure to state a claim: Williams v. Legal Mail Handler, No.

2:13-cv-14296-JEM (S.D. Fla.); Williams v. Martin Corr. Inst., No. 2:13-cv-

14342-JEM (S.D. Fla.); Williams v. Prummell, No. 2:23-cv-833-JLB-KCD (M.D.

Fla.); Williams v. Thompson, No. 2:23-cv-945-JLB-NPM; and Williams v.

Florida, No. 2:24-cv-1109-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla.). Two months ago, another one

of Williams’s cases was dismissed on the ground that he was “a three-strikes

litigant.” Williams v. Dixon, No. 3:26-cv-237-JEP-PDB, Doc. 3 at 2 (M.D. Fla.

Feb. 12, 2026).

Thus, Williams can avoid dismissal only by showing that he is “under

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

this exception, a prisoner must establish that he is in imminent danger “at the

time that he seeks to file his suit in district court.” Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d

1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999) (cleaned up). “Allegations that the prisoner has

faced imminent danger in the past are insufficient to trigger this exception to

§ 1915(g).” Id. at 1192. Moreover, “general assertions . . . are insufficient to

invoke the exception to § 1915(g) absent specific fact allegations of ongoing

serious physical injury, or of a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood

of imminent serious physical injury.” Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1311 (11th

Cir. 2021).

Williams fails to satisfy the imminent-danger exception. He claims that

prison officials have failed to properly treat his eczema. (Doc. 1 at 5). He also

says that he experiences pain in his wrist, back, and elbows due to a June 2023

slip and fall. (Id. at 7). Without more, Williams’s “complaint of untreated

eczema does not demonstrate imminent danger.” Casey v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,

No. 4:24-cv-341-MW-MAF, 2024 WL 4231593, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2024).

And the pain he allegedly experiences “is insufficient to show the type of

emergency circumstances contemplated by the ‘imminent danger of serious

physical injury’ exception of § 1915(g).” Boobyyaa v. Tucker, No. 5:13-cv-77-RS-

EMT, 2013 WL 1729528, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2013). In short, Williams

does not allege that he faces “severe ongoing complications,” increased

“susceptib[ility] to various illnesses,” or the “rapid[] deteriorat[ion]” of his

conditions. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir. 2004).

Williams separately alleges that prison officials have deprived him of

“proper mental illness meds.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) But he does not identify the mental

illnesses from which he allegedly suffers. Nor does he describe the effects of

the alleged denial of medication. Williams’s “allegation that [he] suffers from

mental illness, without more, is insufficient to meet the imminent-danger

exception to § 1915(g).”1 Williams v. Royal Dutch Gas Station, No. 8:23-cv-

2098-CEH-JSS, 2024 WL 3161877, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 25, 2024) (collecting

cases).

Because Williams has had three or more qualifying dismissals and his

allegations do not satisfy the imminent-danger exception, he cannot proceed in

forma pauperis. A prisoner who is no longer entitled to proceed in forma

pauperis must pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates the suit, and his

failure to do so warrants dismissal without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284

F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (“The prisoner cannot simply pay the filing

fee after being denied in forma pauperis status. He must pay the filing fee at

the time he initiates the suit.”). Therefore, the Court dismisses this action

under § 1915(g). Williams may initiate a new civil rights action by filing a new

complaint and paying the full $405.00 filing fee.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Williams’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1 Williams says that at some point he “caught three heart attacks on different days.”

(Doc. 1 at 5). He also claims to have died and “c[o]me back to life” twice. (Id.) These

allegations of past injury, while troubling, are insufficient to satisfy § 1915(g) and its

immediacy requirement. See Butler, 185 F.3d at 1192.

2. Williams’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is

DENIED. His motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 6) is

also DENIED as moot.

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment against Williams and

to close this file.

ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 17, 2026.

United States District Judge