Reginald L. McCoy v. Charlie B. Wells, et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-02930
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

REGINALD L. MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-2930-WFJ-AEP

CHARLIE B. WELLS, et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER

Reginald L. McCoy, a federal prisoner, initiated this action by filing a pro se civil- rights complaint. (Doc. 1). Because Mr. McCoy did not pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court proceeds as if he seeks in forma pauperis status. The Prison Litigation Reform Act amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which governs in forma pauperis proceedings, by curtailing the number of meritless suits that a prisoner may bring without prepayment of the filing fee: (g) In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 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). Thus, if a prisoner has had three or more cases dismissed for one of the recited reasons, he cannot proceed in forma pauperis and must pay the filing fee in full when he initiates the lawsuit. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). He “cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status”; instead, he “must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.” Id. Mr. McCoy’s prior actions dismissed as either frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim include the following cases: McCoy v. Genzman, No. 8:13-cv-130-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla.); McCoy v. Castro, No. 8:08-cv-1978-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla.); McCoy v. Casterline, No. 4:03-cv-4439 (S.D. Tex.); and McCoy v. Garcia, No. 1:02-cv-2249-FAL- JDK (W.D. La.). Moreover, at least one federal district court previously informed Mr. McCoy that he qualified as a three-striker under § 1915(g). See McCoy v. United States, No. 1:22-cv-789-BAM, 2022 WL 2442794, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2022), adopted by 2022 WL 3045088 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2022). Thus, unless Mr. McCoy sufficiently alleges that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Court must dismiss his complaint under § 1915(g). Mr. McCoy has alleged no facts showing that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Because he has had at least three prior dismissals that qualify under § 1915(g) and he does not establish that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, Mr. McCoy is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. Mr. McCoy may initiate a new civil-rights case by filing a civil-rights complaint and paying the $405.00 filing fee. Accordingly, Mr. McCoy’s complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mr. McCoy may file a new complaint in a new case upon payment of the $405.00 filing fee. The CLERK is directed to CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 29, 2025.

5. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE