From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Dixon

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Jul 25, 2024
5:24-cv-350-JSS-PRL (M.D. Fla. Jul. 25, 2024)

Opinion

5:24-cv-350-JSS-PRL

07-25-2024

DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. RICKY D. DIXON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

IGNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Douglas Marshall Jackson, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. 1.) In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are burdening his First Amendment right to practice his religion and are retaliating against him through a “transfer and loss of property” for grievances that he has filed. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee.

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 the prior actions filed by a prisoner plaintiff which were dismissed as frivolous or malicious or because they failed to state a claim.

The court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff's previous actions which were dismissed as frivolous or malicious or because they failed to state a claim: Jackson v. Inch, et al., No. 5:21-cv-00255-TPB-PRL (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2021); Jackson v. Inch, No. 3:21CV732-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2021); Jackson v. Inch, No. 3:21CV132-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2021); Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:20CV5882-LC-HTC (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2020); Jackson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 5:20-cv-237-RDB-PRL (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2020); Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 20-CV-20777-BB (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2020). The court also takes judicial notice of previous actions filed by Plaintiff which were dismissed based on the three-strikes provision: Jackson v. Dixon, et al., 5:22-cv-313-WWB-PRL (M.D. Fla. July 14, 2022); Jackson v. Inch, et al., 5:21-cv-00183-WWB-PRL (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2021).

Because Plaintiff has 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 the full $405 filing fee.

Accordingly:

1. The complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

2. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny as moot any pending motions, terminate any pending deadlines, and close this case.

ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jackson v. Dixon

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Jul 25, 2024
5:24-cv-350-JSS-PRL (M.D. Fla. Jul. 25, 2024)
Case details for

Jackson v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. RICKY D. DIXON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Date published: Jul 25, 2024

Citations

5:24-cv-350-JSS-PRL (M.D. Fla. Jul. 25, 2024)