UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

RANDY A. HART,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:20-cv-2043-T-02TGW

AUBURNDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint (Doc. 1). Upon consideration, the Court Orders as follows: Plaintiff initiated this action on August 31, 2020, and, as of the date of this order, has not paid the filing fee. The Court, accordingly, treats this action as an in forma pauperis proceeding under

. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended

by adding the following subsection: (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.

(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 at the time the lawsuit is initiated. Dupree v. Palmer,

(11th Cir. 2002). Consequently, courts have a responsibility to dismiss cases, even sua sponte, under

(g). See, e.g., Casey v. Scott,

(11th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiff ‘s prior cases, dismissed as either frivolous, malicious, or for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted include: Hart v. Judd, 8:11-cv-1590-T-33TBM, Hart v. State of Florida, 8:13-cv-2533-T-30MAP, Hart v. Knight, 8:16-cv-1337-T-33JSS, and Hart v. Hays, 16-cv-1391-T-17TGW.

Plaintiff attempts to satisfy the “imminent danger” exception by describing that he was attacked and injured by an inmate and that he “could possibly sustain [injury] in any future attacks.” (Doc. 1 at 1–2). This is insufficient to satisfy the

exception. See e.g., Ball v. Allen, No. 06-0496-CG-M,

(S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2007) (explaining that “[t]he plaintiff must allege and provide specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury, and vague allegations of harm

and unspecific references to injury are insufficient.” (Citations and quotation marks omitted)). Without more, evidence of one attack does not demonstrate that future attacks or other serious physical injuries are imminent. Therefore, because he has had three prior dismissals that qualify under Section 1915(g) and because he has not sufficiently alleged that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. This preclusion against proceeding in forma pauperis is without regard to the merits of the present civil rights complaint. Plaintiff may initiate a new civil rights case by filing a civil rights complaint and paying the filing fee in full. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of anew complaint, in a new case, with a new case number, upon the payment of the filing fee. The CLERK is directed to TERMINATE any pending motions and to CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 7, 2020.

ME: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Plaintiff, pro se