YOUNG v. LEON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
DA’VHON YOUNG,
# N12032,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:26cv55-MW-MAF
LEON COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated in the Florida Department
of Corrections and housed at Graceville Correctional Facility. ECF No. 3 at
1. Plaintiff has submitted a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
ECF No. 1, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No.
3, which is supported by a financial affidavit and a signed Prisoner Consent
Form and Financial Certificate, to which is attached a copy of Plaintiff’s
Trust Fund Account Statement from the Florida Department of Corrections
for the six month period of time prior to case initiation. The motion
demonstrates Plaintiff’s entitlement to in forma pauperis status because he
Case 4:26-cv-00055-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
lacks funds to pay the Court’s filing fee. However, a prisoner’s account
balance is only one consideration in granting in forma pauperis status.
Plaintiff did not comply with the Local Rules of this Court which
require pro se litigants to file a civil rights complaint on the Court approved
form. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A). By failing to use that form. Plaintiff did not
list all of his prior cases. Thus, the Court has made an independent review
of Plaintiff’s litigation history in this Court to determine if Plaintiff’s motion is
barred by the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff filed case number 4:23cv75-WS-MAF in this Court; the case
was dismissed as malicious for Plaintiff’s misrepresentation of his litigation
history. That case counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff
filed case number 4:24cv87-WS-MJF which was dismissed for the same
reason and counts as Plaintiff’s second “strike.” Plaintiff filed case number
4:25cv321-MW-MAF which was also dismissed “for Plaintiff’s failure to
truthfully disclose his litigation history.” ECF No. 5 of that case.
Moreover, Plaintiff also filed case number 4:24cv161-MW-MAF.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted on July 14, 2025, because
Plaintiff failed to satisfy the pre-suit notice requirement. ECF No. 38 of that
case. In dismissing that case, the Clerk of Court was directed to “note on
Case No. 4:26cv55-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00055-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
the docket that” the case was “dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),”
which means it was dismissed for failure to state a claim. 	Id.
That means Plaintiff has had at least four cases dismissed for the
reasons listed in § 1915(g). 1 Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed with
this case unless his complaint presents factual allegations which
demonstrate that he faces “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Plaintiff has not done so.
Plaintiff’s initial complaint is essentially a challenge to his conviction.
ECF No. 1. It does not concern any claims pertaining to the conditions of
his confinement, nor does Plaintiff name any prison official as a Defendant
in this case. The complaint does not meet the “imminent danger” exception
of § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed with in forma pauperis status; thus,
Plaintiff’s motion for in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 3, should be denied
and this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer,
284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that an action must be
1 That statute provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if he “has, on 3 or more occasions . . . brought an
action or appeal . . . 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).
Case No. 4:26cv55-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00055-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
dismissed without prejudice when an inmate who is subject to § 1915(g)
does not pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit). Plaintiff “cannot
simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status.”
Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, be DENIED and this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It is
further recommended that if this Recommendation is adopted by the Court,
the Clerk of Court should be directed to note on the docket that this case
was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 2, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
Case No. 4:26cv55-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00055-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:26cv55-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00055-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 5