CASEY
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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.
Pro se prisoner Brian Casey filed a civil rights complaint challenging conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege facts showing imminent danger of serious physical injury, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule.
The complaint does not allege facts showing Casey is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore, dismissal is appropriate under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule, even accepting all allegations in the complaint as true.
“the complaint itself does not allege facts showing imminent danger”
The court's core holding that the complaint fails to satisfy the statutory requirement of alleging imminent danger of serious physical injury
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrian Casey is a prisoner and prolific litigator with a history of prior litigation. He filed a complaint against the Florida Department of Correction…
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.
Pro se prisoner Brian Casey—a three-striker and prolific litigator—has filed a new case. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal because the complaint does not allege facts showing Casey "is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 4. Casey has filed objections (ECF No. 5), which I have considered de novo. I agree with the magistrate judge.
The magistrate judge notes that based on Casey's litigation history and evidence in his prior cases, he is unworthy of belief. I do not disagree. But that is not the issue here, because the complaint itself does not allege facts showing imminent danger. See Daker v. Ward, 999 F. 3d 1300, 1311 (11th Cir. 2021). In dismissing, I am relying solely on what is alleged in the complaint, and it is not sufficient, even accepting all allegations as true.
1
I now adopt the report and recommendation and incorporate it into this order.
The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice." The clerk will then close the file.
SO ORDERED on April 12, 2024.
s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge
2