WILDER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The court held that a prisoner who is a "three-striker" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and does not allege imminent danger must prepay the filing fee, and cannot belatedly pay it after being denied IFP status.
Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner and "three-striker," filed a civil rights complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). He d…
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 Imminent Danger Exception To § 1915(G) cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint seeking damages, ECF No. 1, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), ECF No. 2. He appears to challenge his state armed robbery criminal conviction, sentencing, and resentencing, all of which occurred between 1995 and 2006, under state law and the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. ECF No. 1 at 5, 7.
Plaintiff is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C § 1915 and indicates so in his complaint. Id. at 9. Judicial notice is taken of the following cases dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim: (1) Wilder v. Burnside, Case No. 1:04cv-21801-MGC (S.D. Fla. 2004); (2) Wilder v. Burnside, Case No. 1:04-cv- 20902-JAL, (S.D. Fla. 2004); and (3) Wilder v. Nichols, Case No. 3:11-cv-
0348-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla. 2012). All were filed when Plaintiff was a prisoner. More recently, Plaintiff has had multiple cases dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g). See, e.g., Wilder v. State of Florida, Case No. 1:16-cv-34 (N.D. Fla. 2016); Wilder v. Hodgson, Case No. 3:18-cv-500-BJD-JK (M.D. Fla. 2018); Wilder v. Jordan, Case No. 3:18-cv-671-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla. 2018).
Thus, Plaintiff is not eligible for in forma pauperis status because he is a three-striker under § 1915(g) and does not allege he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. That statute prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action without prepaying the filing fee “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions...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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Therefore, this case should be summarily dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff did not submit the filing fee at the same time the complaint was submitted, and as a three-striker under § 1915(g), Plaintiff is not entitled to belatedly pay the filing fee. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F. 3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). "The prisoner cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status." Id.
4:24-cv-348-TKW-MAF
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge his conviction, ordinarily his remedy would be by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. However, court records show Plaintiff has attempted to do this several times in the proper forum, and all have been dismissed as time-barred due to the oneyear limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). See, e.g., Wilder v. Jones, Case No. 16-cv-24518-DPG (S.D. Fla. 2016); Wilder v. State of Florida, Case No. 18-cv-24418-KMW (S.D. Fla. 2018).
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 2, be DENIED, that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice, and the Order adopting this Report and Recommendation should direct the Clerk of Court to note on the docket that this case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on August 30, 2024.
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). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
4:24-cv-348-TKW-MAF
all other parties. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic 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(b)(1)(C).
4:24-cv-348-TKW-MAF