1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DONALD GENE BLANTON,

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

v. Case No. 3:22-CV-2350-X-BN

CASEY BLAIR, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 4]. Plaintiff Donald Gene Blanton, a Texas 

prisoner, filed a pro se civil complaint against two state judges and the Kaufman 

County District Attorney, alleging violations of his civil rights. But he neither paid 

the filing fee nor moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Although Blanton 

moved to proceed in forma pauperis after the Magistrate Judge filed these findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Blanton is 

barred from bringing this action in forma pauperis under the three-strikes provision 

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).

1 Section 1915(g) of the PLRA provides 

that a prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis if that prisoner has, on 

three or more prior occasions while incarcerated, “brought an action or appeal in a 

court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 

1 Doc. No. 4 at 2.

Case 3:22-cv-02350-X-BN Document 11 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 63
2

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the 

prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”2 The Magistrate 

Judge found that Blanton has accrued three strikes under § 1915(g) and that “his 

complaint lacks substantive factual allegations to show that he currently is in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.”3

Blanton filed objections, arguing that he is in fact under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury.

4 He contends that the state prison in which he is being held

is a “high-risk dangerous environment . . . where the deadly [coronavirus] is being 

easily spread[] and causing death.”5 To meet the imminent danger requirement of 

§ 1915(g), a “prisoner must allege specific facts showing that he is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury.”

6 “General allegations that are not grounded in 

specific facts which indicate that serious physical injury is imminent are not 

sufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g).”7 Blanton’s COVID-related allegations 

are unsupported by specific facts and therefore do not adequately establish imminent 

danger of serious physical injury.

Blanton offers no response to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he 

accrued three strikes under § 1915(g). Nor does he adequately allege imminent 

2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3 Doc. No. 4 at 2–4.

4 Doc. No. 6 at 4.

5 Id.

6 Valdez v. Bush, No. 3-08-CV-1481-N, 2008 WL 4710808, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2008)

(Godbey, J.).

7 Id. (quoting Niebla v. Walton Correctional Inst., No. 3-06-CV-275-LAC-EMT, 2006 WL 

2051307, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jul. 20, 2006)).

Case 3:22-cv-02350-X-BN Document 11 Filed 02/16/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 64
3

danger of serious physical harm. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Blanton’s

objection.

The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations to which objection was made, and reviewed the 

remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. 

Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge. [Doc. No. 4]. Accordingly, the Court 

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of February, 2023.

__________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02350-X-BN Document 11 Filed 02/16/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 65