Hamze

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ABDELAZIZ HAMZE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1436-MMH-PDB

SERGEANT TYLER PENDER,

et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Abdelaziz Hamze, an inmate of the Florida penal system who

is proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint for Violation of

Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Complaint; Doc. 1) and two motions,

including a Motion for Urgent Screening and Injunctive Relief due to Imminent

Life-Threatening Danger (Motion; Doc. 3).1 Hamze alleges in his Complaint

that the administration at Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI) “pos[es] an

imminent danger to [his] life” because officers and other inmates have been

allowed to physically abuse him for writing grievances. See Complaint at 9–10.

He mentions the following incidents: on January 22, 2025, Officer-

Defendant Pender became agitated with him, destroyed his personal property,

1 The other motion is a request to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 2).

and said he would “kill [Hamze] if [Hamze didn’t] kill his cellmate”; on

September 17, 2025, Officer Rainey slammed Hamze’s head into a wall; on

September 27, 2025, Officer-Defendants Pender and Holmes physically

attacked Hamze for allegedly calling a female officer a “whore”; on January 15,

2026, Officer-Defendant Hodge “addressed [Hamze] in a hostile manner” and

told Hamze that the Warden said Hamze would be retaliated against any time

he filed a grievance; also on January 15, 2026, Officer-Defendant Camacho

“gas[sed]” Hamze for writing grievances, even though Hamze was known to

have a respiratory disorder; and on January 22, 2026, Officer-Defendant

Camacho incited “other inmates to physically assault [him].” Id. at 6–9. Hamze

claims to have “evidence” that Warden Swain was “directly responsible for all

of the [described] incidents of reprisal,” but he also says that Swain was fired

as the Warden of CCI on February 5, 2026. Id. at 9–10.

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.

2

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 other actions previously brought by

Hamze that were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious,

or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: (1) 3:13-cv-301

MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla.) (abuse of the judicial process); (2) 09-60876-CIV ZLOCH

(S.D. Fla.) (failure to prosecute); and (3) 09-CV-60966 DIMITROULEAS (S.D.

Fla) (failure to state a claim).2 Hamze asserts in both his Complaint and

Motion for injunctive relief that he is in imminent danger. See Complaint at

10; Motion at 1. But his allegations of past harm and speculation about future

harm do not satisfy the standard.3 See, e.g., Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344,

1349 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A] prisoner must allege a present imminent danger, as

opposed to a past danger, to proceed under [§] 1915(g).”); see also Sutton v.

Dist. Attorney’s Off., Gwinnett Super. Ct., Ga., 334 F. App’x 278, 279 (11th Cir.

2009) (holding that generalized assertions of fear, anxiety, and danger are

2 Hamze is a three-strikes litigant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 3:16-

cv-1217-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2016).

3 Hamze raised many of these same allegations previously, and the Court

dismissed his Complaint for failure to satisfy the imminent danger exception. See

3:26-cv-201-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2026).

3

“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” (quoting Brown, 387 F.3d at

1350)).

Because Hamze 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 and his Motion for injunctive

relief will be denied. Hamze may initiate a new civil rights action by filing a

new civil rights complaint form and paying the full $405.00 filing fee.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. This case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. Hamze’s Motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 3) is DENIED.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without

prejudice, terminate any pending motions as moot, and close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 2nd day of June,

2026.

United States District Judge

Jax-6

c:

Abdelaziz Hamze

5