Graham v. Kyle

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedDecember 10, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-01112
StatusUnknown

This text of Graham v. Kyle (Graham v. Kyle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graham v. Kyle, (M.D. Fla. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

KEVIN O. GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-1112-SPC-KCD

BRUCE KYLE and 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, LEE COUNTY, FL,

Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Kevin O. Graham’s Complaint. (Doc. 1). Graham—a prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections— moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Because Graham is barred from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Under § 1915(g), a prisoner cannot proceed in forma pauperis if “on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, [he] brought an action or appeal in a [federal] court...that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020) (“To help staunch a ‘flood of nonmeritorious’ prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three-strikes rule.” (citation omitted)). And “[a]

dismissal of a suit for failure to state a claim counts as a strike, whether or not with prejudice.” Lomax, 140 S. Ct. at 1727. The Court takes judicial notice of three prior federal lawsuits Graham filed in this district, all of which were filed before this case and dismissed for

failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: Cases Nos. (1) 2:24- cv-230-JLB-NPM; (2) 2:24-cv-834-JLB-KCD; and (3) 2:24-cv-626-SPC-NPM. Graham is not exempt from § 1915(g)’s three-strikes rule, as the Complaint does not allege he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Mitchell

v. Nobles, 873 F. 3d 869, 872 (11th Cir. 2017). The Court thus dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. If Kevin O. Graham’s wishes to pursue his claim(s), he must file a new complaint— under a new case number—and pay the $402.00 filing fee.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Kevin O. Graham’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and close this file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 10, 2024.

tite POLSTER otal UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record

9)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

William Mitchell v. Warden
873 F.3d 869 (Eleventh Circuit, 2017)
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
590 U.S. 595 (Supreme Court, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Graham v. Kyle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-kyle-flmd-2024.