Junior Diessy Simon, D.O.C. # L98586 v. United States of America, et. al

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00402
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

JUNIOR DIESSY SIMON, D.O.C. # L98586, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 4:25-cv-402-MW-MAF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al, Defendants. ___________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner, submitted a handwritten complaint on September 17, 2025 by prison mailbox rule. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, but did submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 2. However, Plaintiff is not entitled to IFP status because he is a three-striker and the complaint fails to show he is in imminent danger. As discussed below, dismissal is warranted. If Plaintiff had used the approved court form as required by the Local Rules, he would have had to disclose his litigation history and inform the Court whether he has accumulated “three strikes” under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (PLRA). Such disclosures are necessary because the PLRA 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). Plaintiff qualifies as a three-striker. Judicial notice is taken of the

following civil rights cases dismissed for failure to state a claim: (1) Simon v. Allen, et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-60203-WPD (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2020); (2) Simon v. Broward Sheriff Office, et al., Case No. 0:23-cv-61935-DMM (S.D. Fla. November 27, 2023); (3) Simon v. State of Florida, et al., Case No. 0:24-

cv-60969 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2024); (4) Simon v. Extended Stay Hotel Headquarters, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-61221-RS (S.D. Fla. October 23, 2024). All were filed when Plaintiff was a prisoner.1

Because Plaintiff has three strikes, he is not entitled to proceed without paying the filing fee at the time of case initiation unless he alleges that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). There is no such showing here. Plaintiff’s complaint is 56-pages of

sovereign-citizen-type arguments that he is being held against his will by various government entities. See ECF No. 1. He seeks release and monetary

1 Each case cited herein contains Plaintiff’s name and either his DOC or Broward County Jail inmate number. damages. It is frivolous and does not allege or show imminent danger. Therefore, this case should be summarily dismissed without prejudice

because Plaintiff did not submit the filing fee at the same time the complaint was filed, 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). RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, be DENIED and this case be

DISMISSED without prejudice. 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 September 23, 2025. 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 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).