UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT EUGENE EASLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv56-TKW-MJF

RICKY D. DIXON, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DIMSISSING CASE UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915(g)

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 112). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R (Doc. 

136) and Defendants Blocker (Doc. 138) and Dixon (Doc. 139) filed responses to 

the objections. The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objections de novo as 

required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that 

review, the Court finds that this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice as 

recommended by the magistrate judge.

Background

Plaintiff is a “three-strike” inmate, so he may not bring a civil action in federal 

court in forma paupers (IFP) unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Plaintiff initiated this case in February 2020, but he 

Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 140 Filed 05/15/23 Page 1 of 6
2

did not pay the filing fee when he filed the complaint. Instead, he sought to proceed 

IFP under the “imminent danger” exception in §1915(g). See Doc. 2.

The magistrate judge initially allowed Plaintiff to proceed IFP based on the

allegation in the complaint that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury 

at the time the complaint was filed because he was not receiving any care for his 

chronic medical condition. See Doc. 6. However, the magistrate judge warned 

Plaintiff that “his [IFP] status may be revoked and this case dismissed” if it turned 

out that he was not in imminent danger at the time he filed the complaint. Id. at 7-8

(citing McLeod v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 778 F. App’x 663, 665 (11th Cir. 2019), 

for the proposition that “the district court has the authority to revisit its initial 

determination that a prisoner litigant is in imminent danger and revoke a prisoner’s 

IFP status when new evidence comes to light that the prisoner was not in imminent 

danger at the time he filed the complaint”).

In January 2023, the magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on the issue 

of whether Plaintiff was in “imminent danger when he initiated this case. The 

magistrate judge thereafter issued a R&R finding that Plaintiff falsely claimed to 

have been in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint

was filed and recommending that the case be dismissed under §1915(g). Plaintiff 

takes issue with that finding and recommendation (and the proceedings that led to 

them) in his objections.

Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 140 Filed 05/15/23 Page 2 of 6
3

The Court reviewed the issues raised in Plaintiff’s objections along with the 

transcript of the evidentiary hearing held by the magistrate judge (Doc. 133) and the 

evidence introduced at the hearing (attachments to Doc. 111). Based on that review, 

the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings and recommended disposition

of this case.

Analysis

None of the myriad of arguments raised by Plaintiff in his objections are 

persuasive, but only three merit discussion: (1) that dismissal is not warranted 

because Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee; (2) that the magistrate judge improperly 

focused on the allegations in the original complaint, rather than the amended 

complaint; and (3) that the evidentiary hearing was unfair because Defendants did 

not timely disclose their witnesses. The Court rejects these arguments for the 

reasons that follow, and the Court rejects the remaining arguments in the objections 

without discussion.

The Court rejects the first argument (that dismissal is not warranted because 

Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee) for two reasons. First, as the magistrate judge 

found, the record reflects that Plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee in December 2022 

was a transparent effort to avoid the evidentiary hearing set by the magistrate judge 

to determine whether Plaintiff truthfully alleged that he was in imminent danger 

when he filed the complaint because the fee was paid within days after the magistrate 

Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 140 Filed 05/15/23 Page 3 of 6
4

judge denied Plaintiff’s motion to continue the hearing and rejected his argument 

that the magistrate judge lacked the authority to hold such a hearing. See Docs. 95, 

98. Second, the Eleventh Circuit has held that a three-strike inmate is not entitled to 

an opportunity to pay the filing file after IFP status is denied because the inmate is 

required to pay the filing fee “at the time he initiates the suit.” Dupree v. Palmer, 

284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original).

The Court rejects the second argument (that the magistrate judge improperly 

focused on the allegations in the original complaint rather than the amended 

complaint) because the general proposition that an amended complaint supersedes 

the original complaint has no bearing on the narrow question decided by the 

magistrate judge—i.e., whether Plaintiff was in “imminent danger” when he filed 

the original complaint. Section 1915(g) focuses on the circumstances facing the 

inmate at the time he initiates the case, so it was appropriate for the magistrate judge 

to focus on the circumstances that Plaintiff alleged in the original compliant to 

determine whether he was in “imminent danger” at that time. Moreover, focusing 

on the amended complaint would not help Plaintiff because, as the magistrate judge 

explained in the R&R, the amended complaint does not explain what “imminent 

danger” Plaintiff was facing when he initiated this case. See Doc. 112 at 4-5.

The Court rejects the third argument (that the evidentiary hearing was unfair 

because Defendants did not timely disclose their witnesses and exhibits before the 

Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 140 Filed 05/15/23 Page 4 of 6
5

hearing) because that issue was not raised at the evidentiary hearing.1 Although 

Plaintiff stated at the evidentiary hearing that he had not received Defendants’ 

witness list, see Doc. 133 at 12, he did not request a continuance or otherwise object 

to proceeding with the hearing. Likewise, Plaintiff did not object to any of the 

exhibits offered by Defendants at the hearing on the grounds that he did not timely 

receive them. Additionally, although Plaintiff now complains that he did not receive 

Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures from Defendants’ “expert” witnesses (Nurse Caldwell and 

Dr. Lay) and that a proper foundation was not laid for their testimony, Plaintiff did 

not object to the lack of disclosures, the witnesses’ qualifications, or the foundation 

for their opinions at the evidentiary hearing and it is questionable whether Rule 

26(a)(2) disclosures are even required at this stage of the case. Finally, as Defendant 

Blocker persuasively argues in her response to Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff cannot 

show prejudice because he has known the substance of Nurse Caldwell’s testimony 

since October 2021 (see Doc. 37-1) and he had ample opportunity to cross-examine 

her and Dr. Lay at the evidentiary hearing—and he competently did so.

1

 The Court did not overlook that the magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s requests for 

extension of time to prepare for the hearing (see Docs. 94, 104), but Plaintiff did not renew those 

requests or otherwise seek a continuance at the evidentiary hearing. Moreover, Plaintiff did not 

timely seek review of the magistrate judge’s orders denying the requested extensions (as he could 

have under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)), and the time for doing so has long since passed.

Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 140 Filed 05/15/23 Page 5 of 6
6

Conclusion

In sum, the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court finds that this case 

must be dismissed under §1915(g) because Plaintiff is a three-strike inmate who did 

not pay the filing fee when he filed his original complaint and he should never have 

been allowed to proceed IFP because the more persuasive evidence establishes that 

he was not under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the 

complaint was filed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and the magistrate judge’s R&R is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. The Order (Doc. 6) authorizing Plaintiff to proceed IFP is VACATED, 

and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP (Doc. 2) is DENIED nunc pro tunc 

to the date of the now-vacated Order allowing him to proceed IFP.

3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(g).

4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and then 

close the case file.

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of May, 2023.

_________________________________

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 140 Filed 05/15/23 Page 6 of 6