Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16258
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00464-WTH-PRL
NYKA TASSIANT O'CONNOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
WARDEN, LAKE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
PIPPIN
Assistant Warden Mental Health,
WILLIAM SADOWSKI,
former Psychiatrist,
DR. ANTONY,
for Psychiatrist, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 2 of 7
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 25, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nyka O’Connor (“Plaintiff”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s three-strikes rule for failing to show that he
was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” After careful review, we
affirm the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Lake
Correctional Institution in Florida from May to June 2012. During that time,
Plaintiff went on a hunger strike, was put under observation for self-harm, and was
given involuntary injections of psychiatric medications that “adversely affected”
him. Plaintiff also had “serious” gastrointestinal issues including “regurgitation,
indigestion,” and “acid reflux.” Plaintiff was offered an alternative diet (along
with a 4,000 calorie diet to alleviate the malnourishment caused by his hunger
2
Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 3 of 7
strikes), but it was not vegetarian and thus did not comply with Plaintiff’s religious
beliefs. Plaintiff’s doctors also scheduled a “gastro procedure[ ] (endoscopy, etc.)”
that Plaintiff missed, and the procedure was never rescheduled. Over time,
Plaintiff’s “acid reflux, heartburns, regurgitation, pains, etc.” worsened and
Plaintiff alleges that he was not provided with adequate medical care, including
“meds, procedures, surgery,” a diet that accommodated both his gastrointestinal
needs and his religious beliefs, and other treatments.
After being transferred to another facility, Plaintiff returned to Lake in 2016.
Upon his return, Plaintiff alleges he was once again threatened with involuntary
injection of psychiatric medications—which Plaintiff objected to by going on
another hunger strike. Plaintiff also saw a new doctor and advised the doctor of
“several issues he’s been experiencing over the years,” including lingering issues
from old injuries and continuing gastrointestinal problems (including “acid reflux
. . . regurgitation, heartburns, indigestion, bloody stools, gallstones, appendix,
etc.”). Plaintiff alleges that prison medical staff either provided ineffective
treatment or ignored his complaints.
B. Procedural History
In June 2016, while still incarcerated at Lake, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,
filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against the Lake medical staff
3
Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 4 of 7
that had treated him. Plaintiff alleged claims for violation of his rights under the
federal and Florida constitutions, violation of various federal laws, breach of
contract, and unspecified tort claims. Plaintiff also moved for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.
After the suit was transferred to the Middle District of Florida, the district
court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice under
28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g)’s three-strikes rule. 1 The district court observed that Plaintiff had
previously filed three or more lawsuits in forma pauperis that had been dismissed
for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. And the court concluded
that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to “allege facts demonstrating imminent danger of
serious physical injury” sufficient to skirt the three-strikes bar.
Plaintiff filed a timely appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Brown v. Johnson,
387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004). In doing so, we must
1
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) states:
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.
4
Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 5 of 7
accept the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint as true,
id., and, because Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, we must liberally construe his pleadings, Tannenbaum v. United
States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
III. DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis
after filing three meritless lawsuits unless he is “under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in concluding that
the allegations in his complaint did not satisfy the imminent danger exception to
§ 1915(g). Accordingly, the issue now on appeal is whether Plaintiff’s complaint,
“as a whole,” Brown,
387 F.3d at 1350, alleges that Plaintiff “was in imminent
danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint,” Medberry v.
Butler,
185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999).2
The district court did not err by dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s
complaint includes a laundry list of injuries that he alleges he either has or will
incur, but Plaintiff’s allegations do not show that he was in imminent danger of
serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. Many of the allegations about
Plaintiff’s injuries or ailments—for example, the dizziness and headaches caused
2
We do not consider Plaintiff’s medical reports and other evidence presented for the first time
on appeal. See Shahar v. Bowers,
120 F.3d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1997).
5
Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 6 of 7
by his psychiatric medication—do not show that they are serious physical injuries
and, at best, do so only in a conclusory manner by stating that they “constitute
serious medical needs.” And the allegations that do concern serious injuries do not
establish how Plaintiff, at the time of his complaint, was in imminent danger of
incurring them. For example, Plaintiff alleges that the veins in his esophagus could
rupture and “cause a massive and often fatal blood loss,” but does not explain why
or how he is in imminent danger of this occurring. Similarly, for the
gastrointestinal conditions that Plaintiff alleges he already has (appendicitis, acid
reflux that “causes esophagus cancer,” and gallstones), he does not explain how
they pose an imminent danger of serious physical injury. Setting aside Plaintiff’s
vague and conclusory allegations that prison staff are not conducting “adequate
inquires” into his ailments or providing adequate care, Plaintiff’s only specific
allegations describing any failure to treat his gastrointestinal issues are that he was
scheduled for a “gastro procedure[ ] (endoscopy, etc.)” in 2012 that was never
performed and that doctors would not prescribe him Nexium. Plaintiff’s
allegations do not explain how failure to perform the unspecified procedure or
prescribe Nexium put him in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time
he filed the complaint. And he does not allege that prison medical staff have
6
Case: 16-16258 Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Page: 7 of 7
refused to treat these issues altogether. 3 See Mitchell v. Nobles,
873 F.3d 869,
874–75 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that a “total lack of [ ] treatment” that causes
serious physical injury is sufficient for § 1915(g)); Brown,
387 F.3d at 1350
(same). As a result, Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish that he was under
imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint, and
the district court’s dismissal under § 1915(g) was appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s
complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the appointment of
appellate counsel is DENIED.
3
In fact, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that his doctors have prescribed him medication for his
gastrointestinal issues and offered him an alternative diet.
7
