WILLIAMS v. DOE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
HENRY A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv1927/LC/ZCB
JANE DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Plaintiff’s 	amended 	complaint. 	(Doc. 	6). 	On
December 19, 2025, after performing its screening obligations under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b), the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within
twenty-one days, why his claims should not be dismissed as time-barred.1
(Doc. 8). 	That deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to
the show cause order or otherwise responded. 	Accordingly, because
Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred, this action should be dismissed.2
1 See Lindley v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 452 F. App’x 878, 880-81 (11th
Cir. 2011) (stating that a district court must give “adequate notice and
an opportunity to be heard” before dismissing a complaint as time-
barred).
2 See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007) (“If the allegations . . . show
that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the complaint
is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim . . . .”).
Case 3:25-cv-01927-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Constitutional claims brought under § 1983 are “governed by the
forum state’s residual personal injury statute of limitations.” Doe as Next
Friend of Doe #6 v. Swearingen, 51 F.4th 1295, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 2022).
This means that in “Florida . . . such an action must be commenced within
four years.” 	Id. at 1303. The “statute of limitations begins to run” when
“the facts which would support a cause of action are apparent or should
be apparent to a person with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights.”
Bridges v. Poe, 155 F.4th 1302, 1319 (11th Cir. 2025).
Here, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against a John Doe and
Jane Doe3 for violating his Eighth Amendment rights. 	(Doc. 6 at 7).
Plaintiff alleges that on “August 5th, 2021[,]” he declared a psychological
emergency and was sprayed with chemical agents by John Doe 	in
violation of his rights. 	(Id. at 5). 	Plaintiff also claims that Jane Doe
violated his rights when she put an IV needle in his arm and caused him
pain. (Id.).
Plaintiff was aware of the facts supporting his Eighth Amendment
claims on the day he was sprayed with chemical agents by John Doe and
3 As Plaintiff was told in the Court’s prior order, fictitious-party pleading
is generally not permitted in federal court. (Doc. 5 at 2 n.1). Yet Plaintiff
still asserts his claims against Jane and John Doe.
Case 3:25-cv-01927-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 5

3
had an IV placed in his arm by Jane Doe—August 5, 2021. (Doc. 6 at 5).
See Chapman v. Dunn, 129 F.4th 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2025) (stating
that a § 1983 claim accrues when “the plaintiffs know or should know (1)
that they have suffered an injury that forms the basis of their complaint
and (2) who has inflicted the injury”). 	But Plaintiff did not file his initial
§ 1983 complaint until October 6, 2025,4 more than four years later. (Doc.
1 at 1). Because he filed his complaint more than four years after his
claim accrued, his claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
The Court previously notified Plaintiff of the statute of limitations
issue. (Doc. 8 at 1-3). The Court also notified Plaintiff of the availability
of equitable tolling and provided him an opportunity to assert qualifying
circumstances in his response to the show cause order. (Id. at 4-5). But
Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order, and his factual
allegations do not provide any justification to apply equitable tolling
here. See Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958, 971 (11th
Cir. 2016) (en banc) (stating that the “party seeking equitable tolling has
the burden of proof” and must prove “(1) that he has been pursuing his
4 “[T]he prison mailbox rule” provides that “a pro se prisoner’s court filing
is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for
mailing.” 	Daniels v. United States, 809 F.3d 588, 589 (11th Cir. 2015).
Case 3:25-cv-01927-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 5

4
rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in
his way and prevented timely filing”). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims should be
dismissed 	as 	time-barred. 	See 	Fitzgerald 	v. 	Gillis, 	No.
5:17CV138/MCR/EMT, 2019 WL 3642617, at *1-3 (N.D. Fla. July 9, 2019)
(dismissing 	prisoner’s 	Eighth 	Amendment 	claims 	as 	time-barred),
adopted, 2019 WL 3604601 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2019).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 6) be DISMISSED under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim because the claims are
barred by the statute of limitations.
2. 	All pending motions be DENIED as moot.
3. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 23rd day of January 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control.
An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties.
Case 3:25-cv-01927-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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.
Case 3:25-cv-01927-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 5