HART v. KNIGHT et al

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
RANDY A. HART,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2624-MW-HTC
WALTON CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Randy A. Hart, a prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action by
filing in the Middle District of Florida a handwritten document titled “Civil Rights
Complaint” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Warden T. Knight and Walton
Correctional Institution as defendants. Doc. 1. The Middle District transferred the
action to the Northern District of Florida on December 16, 2025. 	Doc. 3. 	Upon
review 	of 	the 	Complaint 	and 	Plaintiff’s 	litigation 	history, 	the 	undersigned
respectfully recommends that the case be dismissed without prejudice because
Plaintiff is a three-striker who failed to simultaneously pay the Court’s filing fee and
did not allege imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), prohibits
a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis under certain circumstances:
Case 3:25-cv-02624-MW-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:25cv2624-MW-HTC
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.
A prisoner who is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis must pay the
filing fee at the time he initiates his lawsuit, and his failure to do so warrants
dismissal of his case without prejudice. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236
(11th Cir. 2002) (holding that “the proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss
the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to the provisions of § 1915(g)” because the prisoner “must pay
the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit”). The only exception is if the prisoner
alleges facts to show he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
There is no question here that Plaintiff is a three-striker.1 Indeed, Plaintiff has
had numerous cases dismissed because of that status. See, e.g., Hart v. Davis, 3:25-
cv-00211-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2025); Hart v. English, 3:24-cv-181-LC-
HTC (N.D. Fla. May 31, 2024); Hart v. Davis, No. 23-14096-F, at Doc. 1 (11th Cir.
1 The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff has had at least the following cases dismissed for
failure to state a claim or as frivolous: Hart v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-21889-FAM, at Docs.
8 & 9 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2016); Hart v. Florida, No. 8:13-cv-2533-JSM-MAP, at Doc. 3 (M.D.
Fla. Oct. 4, 2013); Hart v. Judd, et al., No. 8:11-cv-1590-VMC-TBM, at Doc. 2 (M.D. Fla. Aug.
10, 2011).
Case 3:25-cv-02624-MW-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:25cv2624-MW-HTC
Dec. 19, 2023) (finding that Plaintiff was subject to the “three strikes” provision of
the PLRA); Hart v. Sec’y DOC, et al., No. 3:20-cv-5765-LC-EMT, at Docs. 7 & 11
(N.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2021) (recognizing Plaintiff as a three-striker and dismissing case);
Hart v. Gray, et al., No. 5:19-cv-69-WTH-PRL, at Doc. 2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2019)
(same).
Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown that he is in “imminent danger” of physical
harm. 	To the contrary, Plaintiff’s three-page “complaint” is devoid of any factual
allegations, consists mostly of various caselaw quotes and the conclusory allegation
that “[t]he record clearly shows that the defendants listed on Page 1 are willfully
holing the plaintiff/prisoner in unlawful detention,” and fails to seek any specific
relief.2 Therefore, Hart does not meet any exception to the three-strikes rule.
Because Hart is a three-striker under § 1915(g), who has failed to show he is
in imminent danger of serious physical injury, and did not pay the full filing fee at
the time he filed this action, this case should be dismissed. See Dupree, 284 F.3d at
1236.
2 If Hart is alleging that his detention is unlawful in order to seek release from custody, his sole
remedy is a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very
fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is
entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy
is a writ of habeas corpus.”).
Case 3:25-cv-02624-MW-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
Case No. 3:25cv2624-MW-HTC
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 19 th day of December, 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) 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 its objections upon
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 the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 3:25-cv-02624-MW-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 4