The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
TIMMY KINNER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:26-cv-759-JEP-MCR
FDOC SECRETARY, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Timmy Kinner, an inmate of the Florida penal system who is
proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint for Violation of
Civil Rights (“Complaint,” Doc. 1).1 In the Complaint, Plaintiff appears to
allege he has been denied his Kosher diet since arriving at Florida State Prison
in 2022 and was on a hunger strike when he mailed his Complaint. (See id.).
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
1 Plaintiff moves to proceed as a pauper. (See Doc. 2).
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.
The Court takes judicial notice of other actions previously brought by
Plaintiff that were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: (1)
Kinner v. Tennessee, No. 2:13-cv-2732-JDT-cgc, Doc. 12 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 15,
2014) (dismissing the case for failure to state a claim and seeking monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief); (2) Kinner v. ADA
Cnty. Prosecutor’s Off., No. 1:21-cv-128-DCN, Doc. 15 (D. Idaho Sep. 14, 2021)
(dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to state a claim); and (3)
Kinner v. FDOC Dir., No. 3:25-cv-92-WWB-SJH, Doc. 13 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27,
2025) (dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to state a claim). Thus,
Plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Kinner
v. FDOC Sec’y, No. 3:25-cv-366-MMH-LLL, Doc. 3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2025).
Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations do not warrant the imminent danger
exception to dismissal. Although Plaintiff alleges he was on a hunger strike,
his Complaint, “as a whole,” does not establish that he “was in imminent
danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint.” Brown v.
2
Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir. 2004); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d
1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999). Construing the allegations liberally, a threat of
self-harm “is not encompassed within the statutory reference to ‘imminent
danger of serious bodily injury’,” because “[i]f that were the case, virtually
every prisoner plaintiff could make such a claim.” Washington v. Jones, No.
3:23-cv-24756, 2023 WL 9604643, *1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 26, 2023)2 (citations
omitted), rep. & recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 554138 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 12,
2023); Morrill v. Holmes Cnty. Jail, No. 5:15-cv-324-WTH-GRJ, 2018 WL
7082149, *9 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2018) (collecting cases that have held that “self-
inflicted injuries by inmates in suicide attempts do not constitute ‘physical
injury’ under the PLRA”), rep. & recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 280082
(N.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2019); see also Muhammad v. McDonough, No. 3:06-cv-527-
J-32TEM, 2006 WL 1640128, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2006) (“[I]t is clear
that a prisoner cannot create the imminent danger so as to escape the three
strikes provision of the PLRA. To hold otherwise would eviscerate the rule.”
(citation omitted)).
2 Any unpublished decisions cited in this Order are deemed persuasive
authority on the relevant point of law. See McNamara v. GEICO, 30 F.4th 1055, 1061
(11th Cir. 2022). In addition, although decisions of other district courts are not
binding, they too may be cited as persuasive authority. See Stone v. First Union Corp.,
371 F.3d 1305, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Although a district court would not be bound
to follow any other district court’s determination, the decision would have significant
persuasive effects.”).
3
Because Plaintiff has had three or more prior qualifying dismissals and
his allegations do not warrant the imminent danger exception to dismissal,
this action will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may initiate a new
civil rights action by filing a new civil rights complaint form and paying
$405.00 ($350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative fee).
Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without
prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 20th day of April,
2026.
CM (oe
JORDAN E. PRATT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jax-11
C:
Timmy Kinner, #F91538