CADEJUSTE v. CLEMMONS

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MARCO THONY CADEJUSTE,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:26-cv-204-TKW/MJF
CLEMMONS,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Marco Thony Cadejuste has filed a complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Docs. 1, 2. Because Plaintiff has incurred three “strikes” and is barred by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis, the District Court
must dismiss this case.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections
(“FDC”) who resides at the Santa Rosa Correctional Institution. Doc. 1.
Plaintiff 	alleges 	that 	Defendant 	failed 	to 	protect 	Plaintiff,
retaliated 	against 	Plaintiff, 	and 	prevented 	Plaintiff 	from 	filing
grievances. Id. at 7–9.
Case 4:26-cv-00204-AW-MJF Document 4 Filed 05/18/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
D ISCUSSION
Under the so-called “three-strikes rule” in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a
prisoner is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis if the prisoner
previously filed three or more actions that courts dismissed for frivolity,
maliciousness, or failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Lomax
v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020). A prisoner who is barred
from proceeding in forma pauperis must pay the filing fee at the time he
initiates his lawsuit, and failure to do so warrants dismissal of his case
without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir.
2002); Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff has incurred at least three strikes under section 1915(g):
• 	Cadejuste v. Dade Corr. Inst., et al., No. 1:25-cv-25355-RS
(M.D. Fla.) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as a “shotgun”
pleading that failed to state a plausible claim for relief);
• 	Cadejuste v. City of Ft. Pierce, et al., No. 2:23-cv-14274-DMM
(M.D. Fla.) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to
state a plausible claim for relief); and
• 	Cadejuste v. Inch, et al., No. 4:21-cv-290-WS-MAF (N.D. Fla.)
(dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous).
Because Plaintiff has incurred at least three strikes, Plaintiff may
not litigate this case in forma pauperis unless he shows that he is “under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Brown
v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2004). To fall within this
Case 4:26-cv-00204-AW-MJF Document 4 Filed 05/18/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
exception, 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	must 	include 	“specific, 	credible
allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm.” Hafed v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1179 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotation
omitted). General allegations are insufficient to invoke section 1915(g)’s
exception. See Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff 	alleges 	only 	that 	he 	suffered 	one 	incident 	of 	past
mistreatment—in 	January 	2026—and 	does 	not 	allege 	any 	ongoing
mistreatment. Doc. 1 at 5–6. Thus, Plaintiff fails to allege that he is in
“imminent” danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
2. 	DIRECT 	the clerk of the court to terminate all pending
motions and to close this case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 18th day of May 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00204-AW-MJF Document 4 Filed 05/18/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to address dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc.
R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). 	Objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen days.
An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections
on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the
magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or 	recommendations
contained in a report and recommendation waives the
right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.
See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties also
are advised that if they dispute the accuracy of any
facts taken from 	judicially-noticed documents, they
must raise this issue in an objection to this report and
recommendation.
Case 4:26-cv-00204-AW-MJF Document 4 Filed 05/18/26 Page 4 of 4