United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Bo Jackson brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging
various constitutional violations related to his confinement
at Chatham County Jail. See doc. 1. He also seeks
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Doc. 2. Although he is indigent, Jackson is precluded from
proceeding IFP by the "three strikes" provision of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). 28 U.S.C. §
PLRA precludes IFP status for plaintiffs who have "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). "After three meritless suits, the prisoner must
pay the full filing fee when he initiates suit; his failure
to do so warrants dismissal without prejudice."
Schmidt v. Rodrigues, 641 F.App'x 913, 916 (11th
Cir. 2016) (citing Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234,
1236 (11th Cir. 2002)).
discloses only one previous lawsuit in this Court, which he
claims is "still pending." Doc. 1 at 3 (referring
to Jackson v. Phillips, CV415-127, doc. 1 (S.D. Ga.
May 11, 2015) (Complaint)). Despite his assertion, that case
(also brought IFP) was dismissed as frivolous in 2015.
See Jackson v. Phillips, CV415-127, doc. 3 (granting
IFP), doc. 6 at 4 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 8, 2015), adopted
doc. 9 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 25, 2015). The Report and
Recommendation recommending that dismissal points out that
that case was "one of four civil cases Jackson
has commenced in this Court." Id. at 1 n. 1
(emphasis added). The other three were also dismissed as
frivolous. See Jackson v. Grogan, CV415-079, doc. 3
(S.D. Ga. April 2, 2015) (granting IFP), doc. 7 (Oct. 8,
2015) (recommending dismissal "sua sponte as
legally frivolous or, at the very least, for failure to state
a claim."), adopted doc. 10 (29, 2015);
Jackson v. Ruffmi, CV414-250, doc. 3 (Nov. 20, 2014)
(granting IFP), doc. 10 (Oct. 8, 2015)(recommending dismissal
as frivolous), adopted doc. 13 (Nov. 10, 2015);
Jackson v. Grogan, CV414-249, doc. 3 (Nov. 20, 2014)
(order granting IFP), doc. 11 (Oct. 8, 2015) (recommending
dismissal as frivolous), adopted doc. 15 (Nov. 25,
2015). He alleged in all of his previous suits that he was
incarcerated. Jackson v. Phillips, CV415-127, doc. 1
(May 11, 2015) (Complaint); Jackson v. Grogan,
CV415-079, doc. 1 (April 1, 2015) (same); Jackson v.
Ruffmi, CV414-250, doc. 1 (Nov. 17, 2014) (same);
Jackson v. Grogan, CV414-249, doc. 1 (Nov. 17, 2014)
(same). Since all four of Jackson's prior civil actions
in this Court were brought while he was a prisoner, pursued
IFP, and dismissed as "frivolous, " he has struck
his failure to disclose all of his prior cases, Jackson
apparently recognized the risk that he has exhausted his
§ 1915(g) strikes. He has attached an addendum to his
Complaint, addressed to the Clerk of this Court, "RE:
Civil Action § 1983, " alleging his "life is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury O.C.G.A.
§ 42-12-7.2." Doc. 1 at 42. Conclusory and general
allegations of possible physical harm are not sufficient to
invoke the imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g)'s
three-strikes bar. See Sutton v. District Attorney's
Office, of Gwinnett Superior Court, Georgia, 334
F.App'x 278, 279 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Brown v.
Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350 (2004) ("[G]eneral
assertions [of health risk], even construed liberally are
'insufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g)
absent specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical
injury, or of a pattern of misconduct evidencing the
likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.'")).
Accordingly Jackson's bare assertion of imminent danger,
in the absence of any indication of which facts in his
43-page Complaint might be intended to support it, is
has more than exhausted his three strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), and has not established entitlement to the
imminent-danger exception. Accordingly, his IFP motion, doc.
2, should be DENIED. Within 14 days of the date that this
Report and Recommendation (R&R) is served, Jackson must
pay the full filing fee or his Complaint should be DISMISSED
R&R is submitted to the district judge assigned to this
action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this
Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any
party may file written objections to this R&R with the
Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendations." Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F.App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. U.S., 612 F.App'x 542, 545
(11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 Jackson filed his Complaint and IFP
motion on state-court forms, captioned for the Superior Court
of Chatham County, Georgia. Doc. 1 at 1, doc. 2 at 1. It is
possible that he intended to file his Complaint in that
Court, but the internal indications are ambiguous. He asserts
violations of the U.S. Constitution ("1st Amendment and
8th, 14th Amendment violations against my constitutional
rights"), doc. 1 at 1, and, as discussed below, he has
attached an addendum addressed to the Clerk of this Court,
id. at 42. For the reasons explained below, he is
not entitled to proceed IFP in this Court, so his Complaint
is due for dismissal unless he pays the full fee. If he
intended to file his Complaint in the Superior Court of
Chatham County, he may voluntarily dismiss this case under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a), or, as discussed below, take no further
action and it will be dismissed without prejudice.
 Jackson has had another prisoner-IFP
case dismissed by this Court. See Jackson v. St.
Lawrence, CV414-259, doc. 1 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2014),
doc. 3 (Dec. 1, 2014) (granting IFP), doc. 6 (Feb. 23, 2015)
(recommending dismissal), adopted, doc. 8 (April 27,
2015). The recommendation of dismissal does not
expressly state that his claim was frivolous, and it
was dismissed without prejudice. See CV414-259, doc.
6 (Feb. 23, 2015) (recommending dismissal), adopted,
doc. 8 (April 27, 2015) (dismissing without prejudice). No
"magic words" are required to classify a dismissal
as a § 1915(g) strike. Daker v. Commissioner,
Georgia Dept. of Corrs., 820 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir.
2016) (citing Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731
(11th Cir. 1998), abrogated in part on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)). But, since the
dispositions of Jackson's other cases are explicit in
finding them frivolous, he has more than three § 1915(g)
strikes regardless. Despite the appearance, therefore, that
this case too was dismissed for frivolity or failure to state
a claim, no additional analysis is necessary.
Jackson's failure to disclose his previous cases,
by the way, is not benign. This Court does not hesitate to
invoke dismissal and other sanctions against inmates who lie
to or otherwise deceive this Court. See, e.g., Ross v.
Fogam, 2011 WL 2516221 at * 2 (S.D. Ga. June 23, 2011);
Johnson v. Chisolm, 2011 WL 3319872 at * 1 n. 3
(S.D. Ga. Aug.l, 2011), cited in Brinson v.
Townsend, 2015 WL 2378940 at * 2 n. 4 (S.D. Ga. May 15,
2015). As explained in Ross:
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
"forbids lying in pleadings, motions, and other papers
filed with the court." Zocaras v. Castro, 465
F.3d 479, 484 (11th Cir. 2006). "Rule 11(c) provides for
sanctions concerning misrepresentations made in papers filed
with the court under Rule 11(b)." Id. at 490;
see also 5A CHARLES Alan WRIGHT & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1335 (3d ed.
2004) (noting that courts have deemed sanctions appropriate
to punish various forms of party misconduct). Rule 41(b)
"expressly authorizes the involuntary dismissal of a
claim for plaintiffs failure to abide by . . . the Federal