[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-16258

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00464-WTH-PRL

NYKA TASSIANT O'CONNOR, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

WARDEN, LAKE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

PIPPIN

Assistant Warden Mental Health,

WILLIAM SADOWSKI,

former Psychiatrist,

DR. ANTONY,

for Psychiatrist, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 1 of 7 
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 25, 2018)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Nyka O’Connor (“Plaintiff”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s three-strikes rule for failing to show that he 

was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” After careful review, we 

affirm the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Lake 

Correctional Institution in Florida from May to June 2012. During that time, 

Plaintiff went on a hunger strike, was put under observation for self-harm, and was 

given involuntary injections of psychiatric medications that “adversely affected” 

him. Plaintiff also had “serious” gastrointestinal issues including “regurgitation, 

indigestion,” and “acid reflux.” Plaintiff was offered an alternative diet (along 

with a 4,000 calorie diet to alleviate the malnourishment caused by his hunger 

Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 2 of 7 
3

strikes), but it was not vegetarian and thus did not comply with Plaintiff’s religious 

beliefs. Plaintiff’s doctors also scheduled a “gastro procedure[ ] (endoscopy, etc.)” 

that Plaintiff missed, and the procedure was never rescheduled. Over time, 

Plaintiff’s “acid reflux, heartburns, regurgitation, pains, etc.” worsened and 

Plaintiff alleges that he was not provided with adequate medical care, including 

“meds, procedures, surgery,” a diet that accommodated both his gastrointestinal 

needs and his religious beliefs, and other treatments. 

After being transferred to another facility, Plaintiff returned to Lake in 2016. 

Upon his return, Plaintiff alleges he was once again threatened with involuntary 

injection of psychiatric medications—which Plaintiff objected to by going on 

another hunger strike. Plaintiff also saw a new doctor and advised the doctor of 

“several issues he’s been experiencing over the years,” including lingering issues 

from old injuries and continuing gastrointestinal problems (including “acid reflux 

. . . regurgitation, heartburns, indigestion, bloody stools, gallstones, appendix, 

etc.”). Plaintiff alleges that prison medical staff either provided ineffective 

treatment or ignored his complaints. 

B. Procedural History

In June 2016, while still incarcerated at Lake, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,

filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against the Lake medical staff 

Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 3 of 7 
4

that had treated him. Plaintiff alleged claims for violation of his rights under the 

federal and Florida constitutions, violation of various federal laws, breach of 

contract, and unspecified tort claims. Plaintiff also moved for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

After the suit was transferred to the Middle District of Florida, the district 

court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g)’s three-strikes rule.

1

 The district court observed that Plaintiff had 

previously filed three or more lawsuits in forma pauperis that had been dismissed 

for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. And the court concluded 

that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to “allege facts demonstrating imminent danger of 

serious physical injury” sufficient to skirt the three-strikes bar. 

Plaintiff filed a timely appeal. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004). In doing so, we must 

 1

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) states:

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.

Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 4 of 7 
5

accept the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint as true, id., and, because Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se, we must liberally construe his pleadings, Tannenbaum v. United 

States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).

III. DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis

after filing three meritless lawsuits unless he is “under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury.” Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in concluding that 

the allegations in his complaint did not satisfy the imminent danger exception to 

§ 1915(g). Accordingly, the issue now on appeal is whether Plaintiff’s complaint, 

“as a whole,” Brown, 387 F.3d at 1350, alleges that Plaintiff “was in imminent 

danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint,” Medberry v. 

Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999).2

 

The district court did not err by dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s

complaint includes a laundry list of injuries that he alleges he either has or will 

incur, but Plaintiff’s allegations do not show that he was in imminent danger of 

serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. Many of the allegations about 

Plaintiff’s injuries or ailments—for example, the dizziness and headaches caused 

 2

 We do not consider Plaintiff’s medical reports and other evidence presented for the first time 

on appeal. See Shahar v. Bowers, 120 F.3d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1997).

Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 5 of 7 
6

by his psychiatric medication—do not show that they are serious physical injuries

and, at best, do so only in a conclusory manner by stating that they “constitute 

serious medical needs.” And the allegations that do concern serious injuries do not 

establish how Plaintiff, at the time of his complaint, was in imminent danger of 

incurring them. For example, Plaintiff alleges that the veins in his esophagus could 

rupture and “cause a massive and often fatal blood loss,” but does not explain why 

or how he is in imminent danger of this occurring. Similarly, for the 

gastrointestinal conditions that Plaintiff alleges he already has (appendicitis, acid 

reflux that “causes esophagus cancer,” and gallstones), he does not explain how 

they pose an imminent danger of serious physical injury. Setting aside Plaintiff’s

vague and conclusory allegations that prison staff are not conducting “adequate 

inquires” into his ailments or providing adequate care, Plaintiff’s only specific

allegations describing any failure to treat his gastrointestinal issues are that he was 

scheduled for a “gastro procedure[ ] (endoscopy, etc.)” in 2012 that was never 

performed and that doctors would not prescribe him Nexium. Plaintiff’s 

allegations do not explain how failure to perform the unspecified procedure or 

prescribe Nexium put him in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time 

he filed the complaint. And he does not allege that prison medical staff have 

Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 6 of 7 
7

refused to treat these issues altogether.3 See Mitchell v. Nobles, 873 F.3d 869, 

874–75 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that a “total lack of [ ] treatment” that causes 

serious physical injury is sufficient for § 1915(g)); Brown, 387 F.3d at 1350

(same). As a result, Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish that he was under

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint, and

the district court’s dismissal under § 1915(g) was appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s 

complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the appointment of 

appellate counsel is DENIED.

 3

 In fact, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that his doctors have prescribed him medication for his 

gastrointestinal issues and offered him an alternative diet. 

Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 7 of 7