IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

REIDIE JACKSON, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:22-CV-145-M-BR

§

RAY CRUZ, et al., §

§

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

COMPLAINT AS THREE STRIKES BARRED

This is a civil rights action brought by Reidie Jackson, a Texas inmate appearing pro se, against 

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

in Tennessee Colony, 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 states that he is refiling certain claims that were previously 

dismissed without prejudice. See No. 2:18-CV-78-Z-BR (N.D. Tex. Amarillo Division). The claims he 

alleges in the current case are primarily Eighth Amendment violations that occurred several years ago. 

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 

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, 

Case 2:22-cv-00145-M-BR Document 4 Filed 01/20/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 19
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 previous filings in this division reveals that Plaintiff has accrued three strikes by 2014, 

including in case Nos. 2:10-CV-261-J-BB (N.D. Tex. Amarillo Division), 2:14-CV-36-Z-BR (N.D. Tex. 

Amarillo Division), and 3:03-CV-373 (S.D. Tex. Galveston Division). 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). 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.

Case 2:22-cv-00145-M-BR Document 4 Filed 01/20/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 20
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 January 20, 2023.

* 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 

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-00145-M-BR Document 4 Filed 01/20/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 21