CASEY v. FLORIDA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BRIAN M. CASEY, D.O.C. # 139647,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:21cv496-MW/MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 13, Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 10, and the record in this case. Plaintiff alleges that he faces ongoing harm based on his administrative confinement, that unidentified persons can contaminate his food, and that he is unable to challenge such conduct because other unknown corrections officers are destroying his grievances and medical call forms. This Court recognizes that it must accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true and construe them liberally, given that he is proceeding pro se. However, these allegations of “imminent danger” are too vague to allow Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the imminent danger exception. See, e.g., O’Connor v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 732 F. App’x 768, 770-71 (11th Cir. 2018); White v. State of Colo., 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998) (“On its face, Mr. White’s allegation contains no specific reference as to

which of the defendants may have denied him what medication or treatment for what ailment on what occasion.”). Accordingly, upon consideration, no objections having been filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation, ECF No. 13, is accepted and adopted as this Court’s opinion. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 2 and 12, are DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s motion for

a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 11, is DENIED because the amended complaint, ECF No. 10, is insufficient to demonstrate imminent danger. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice

to Plaintiff’s refiling an action if he simultaneously submits the $402.00 filing fee.” The Clerk shall note on the docket that this cause is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and close the file. SO ORDERED on April 11, 2022.

s/Mark E. Walker ____ Chief United States District Judge