IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

MICHAEL JARROW, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:22-CV-34-Z-BR

§

KEVIN A. MEDRANO, §

§

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

COMPLAINT AS THREE STRIKES BARRED

This is a civil rights action brought by Michael Jarrow, a Texas inmate appearing pro se, against 

state employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is an inmate confined in the Clements Unit of TDCJ 

in Amarillo, Texas. Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, nor has he paid the 

$402.00 filing fee. While incarcerated, Plaintiff has filed at least three prior civil actions that were dismissed 

as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has not shown that at the time of the filing of this lawsuit, 

he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Therefore, it is recommended that this action 

be dismissed as barred by the three-strike provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

PETITIONER’S ALLEGATIONS

In support of his Complaint, Plaintiff presents the following allegations:

On the date of July 31, 2021, Correctional Officer III Kevin A. Medrano was serving chow 

to the offenders on H5.F-wing for last chow at the William P. Clements Unit; and 

Correctional Officer III Kevin A. Medrano deliberately walked passed [sic] my cell door 

and intentionally did not serve me a meal to eat for last chow. Moreover, on the date of 

July 31, 2021 on H5.F-wing at the William P. Clements Unit; Correctional Officer Kevin 

A. Medrano did not attempt to validate why he intentionally did not serve me a meal to eat 

for last chow.

(ECF 3 at 4). 

The PLRA, enacted into law on April 26, 1996, amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as it relates to civil 

actions filed by prisoners in federal court. Among the changes effected by the PLRA was the inclusion of 

Case 2:22-cv-00034-Z-BR Document 7 Filed 12/15/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 28
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), also known as the “three-strike” provision. Section 1915(g) precludes a prisoner from 

bringing a civil action in forma pauperis if on three or more prior occasions, he filed civil actions or appeals 

in federal court which were dismissed, either by a district court or appellate court, as being frivolous, 

malicious, or for failing to state a claim. See Jackson v. Johnson, 475 F.3d 261, 265 (5th Cir. 2007). When 

a district court dismisses a case as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, such a dismissal counts as a 

“strike” under 1915(g) once the judgment becomes final. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-

88 (5th Cir. 1996). A district court’s dismissal is final when the prisoner has exhausted avenues of appeal 

or has waived any appellate rights. Id.

A prisoner is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis if he is subject to the “three-strike” 

provision “unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

see also Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998). The complaint must present a claim that 

Plaintiff is in danger of imminent serious physical injury to overcome the bar. See Carson v. Johnson, 112 

F.3d 818, 822-823 (5th Cir. 1997). In applying the “three-strike” provision of 1915(g), a court may consider 

case dispositions that occurred prior to the effective date of the PLRA. See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 387-88.

A review of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) and the Sanction Database reflects 

that Plaintiff has had at least three prior actions dismissed with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state 

a claim, as outlined herein; thus, Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis as he requests.

A review of PACER reflects that Plaintiff had the following prior actions dismissed with prejudice 

as frivolous or for failure to state a claim:

a. No. 6:21-CV-1280 (W.D. Tex. Waco Division) (dismissed on February 4, 2022 for 

failure to state a claim – appeal affirmed on October 13, 2022);

b. No. 6:21-CV-1281 (W.D. Tex. Waco Division) (dismissed on February 7, 2022 for 

failure to state a claim – appeal affirmed on October 7, 2022); and

c. No. 6:21-CV-1282 (W.D. Tex. Waco Division) (dismissed on February 4, 2022 for 

failure to state a claim – no appeal taken).

Case 2:22-cv-00034-Z-BR Document 7 Filed 12/15/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 29
Plaintiff has had the requisite number cases dismissed as barred by the three-strike provision over 

the last ten years. Plaintiff also fails to meet the very limited exception that he was under imminent danger 

of serious physical injury at the time he filed this lawsuit.

RECOMMENDATION

For the above reasons, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the complaint filed by 

Plaintiff be dismissed as barred by the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1 This 

recommendation is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to reopen the case if he pays the $402.00 filing and 

administrative fees and files a motion to reopen within thirty days of the date of final judgment.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of these Findings, Conclusions and 

Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

ENTERED December 15, 2022.

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the event 

parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is fourteen (14) 

days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the signature line. Service is 

complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after this 

recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the Findings, 

Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United 

States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party’s failure to timely file 

written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal 

the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the 

1 The Court is aware that Plaintiff maintains multiple other civil rights claims at the present time. See 2:21-

CV-23, 2:21-CV-46, 2:21-CV-65, 2:21-CV-69. 2:21-CV-83, 2:21-CV-123, 2:21-CV-158, 2:21-CV-200, 2:21-CV208, 2:21-CV-227. However, pauper status was granted to Plaintiff in those cases before he became a three striker. 

For that reason, those cases will continue to proceed.

Case 2:22-cv-00034-Z-BR Document 7 Filed 12/15/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 30
Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 

as recognized in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. 

Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:22-cv-00034-Z-BR Document 7 Filed 12/15/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 31