ROY O. DANIELS
v.
THERESA BARBER AND JAMES HAIGLER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Roy O. Daniels, a pro se plaintiff, sought to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil rights action against two private individuals. The district court dismissed the case under the "three strikes" statute (28 U.S.C. §1915(g)) after adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation, and alternatively noted the complaint failed to state a claim because §1983 does not apply to private individuals.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) (the three strikes statute), denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Alternatively, the court noted the complaint would fail because §1983 claims cannot be brought against private individuals.
[1] A case may be dismissed under the "three strikes statute," 28 U.S.C. …
[2] A court reviews objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“§1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.”
Establishes that §1983 claims cannot be brought against private individuals, only state actors
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Roy O. Daniels filed a civil rights complaint against Theresa Barber and James Haigler, two private individuals. Daniels sought to proceed i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Color Of State Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 5). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objections de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that this case should be dismissed under the “three strikes statute," 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). [fn 1] Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
Page 1 of 2
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file.
DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2026.
T. KENT WETHERELL, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
[fn 1]: Even if the case was not dismissed on this ground, it would be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the complaint asserts constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against private individuals, not governmental employees acting under color of state law, and it is well established that “§1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” Focus on the Fam. v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F. 3d 1263, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Focus ON THE Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2003)