Saleeban Maxameth Cali, also known as Saleeban Isse Adan v. Warden Security, et...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION SALEEBAN MAXAMETH CALI, also known as SALEEBAN ISSE ADAN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:26cv86-AW-HTC WARDEN SECURITY, et al., Defendants. _________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Saleeban Maxameth Cali, a Georgia Department of Corrections prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a nonsensical civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Upon consideration, Cali’s complaint should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because he is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) who has not paid the filing fee nor alleged he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.1 Cali has filed over 100 cases in federal court and is known by several names, including Saleeban Isse Adan, Saleeban Mahmet Ali, Saleeban Adan, Saleban Adan, Saleeben Adan, Saleevan Adan, and solely Saleeban. See Saleeban Maxameteth Cali v. United States Sec’y Mr. Setb, Case No. 1:26cv1281-WMR/RDC, Doc. 2 at n. 1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2026) (recommending case for dismissal based on three-striker status, noting Cali is a prolific filer, and listing his various aliases); see also Cali v. Dekalb Cnty. Jail, Case No. 1:25cv349-MW/ZCB, 2025 WL 3560680, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2025) (explaining that while Cali uses different names, the Georgia Department of Corrections inmate number he lists—1000439372—remains the same across numerous cases).

I. DISCUSSION Pursuant to the “three strikes rule,” a prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action when he has previously brought three or more actions or appeals in a court of the United States that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, “unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner who is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates his lawsuit, and his failure to do so warrants dismissal of his case without prejudice. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that “the proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions of § 1915(g)” because the prisoner “must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit”). The only exception is if the prisoner alleges facts showing he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Cali is a three-striker because he has brought at least the following three actions that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim: 1) Adan v. Am. Music Rec. et al., Case No. 5:14cv274-MTT/MSH, Doc. 4 (M.D.

Ga. July 29, 2014) (dismissing case as frivolous); 2) Adan v. Ga. State Prison, Case No. 5:14cv363-MTT/MSH, Doc. 5 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2014) (dismissing case as frivolous).; and 3) Adan v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, et al., Case No. 1:23cv22/LAG, Doc. 13 (N.D. Ga. July 7, 2023) (dismissing for failure to state a claim and as frivolous, and collecting several other cases dismissed under § 1915(g)).

Despite his well-documented three-striker status, Cali did not pay the filing fee in this case and cannot proceed in forma pauperis.

Moreover, Cali has not shown he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury because his claims are nonsensical. In Cali’s statement of facts, he asserts a bevy of illogical wrongs, including that he has an “animal inside [his] stomach” because a Taiwanese man put a “lizard animal” in his food, and “they wanna kill my American white government and my Somalia government.” See Doc. 1. Indeed, this Court has previously found Cali failed to show imminent danger where his complaint was “riddled with nonsensical and frivolous allegations, none of which support a finding of imminent danger.” Cali, 2025 WL 3560680, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 3557222 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2025). The same is true of this complaint.

II. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Cali’s complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because he is a three-striker, did not pay the filing fee when he commenced this case, and has not shown he faces imminent danger.

2. The clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 20th day of April, 2026. /s/ Hope Thai Cannon HOPE THAI CANNON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation 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.