1 As a result of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) amendments to 28

U.S.C. 1915, section 1915(g) now provides that a prisoner may not proceed in

forma pauperis if, on three or more occasions, the prisoner had a case dismissed

as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g)(West

Supp. 2003).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SAMMY V. HOUSTON, §

(TDCJ-ID # 356172,SID# 2958615 §

Prior TDCJ #’s 967992 & 1155815)§

 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:04-CV-888-Y 

§

VEDA BARFIELD, § 

KFC General Manager, et al. §

ORDER FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF IS BARRED FROM PROCEEDING 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) AND,

 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE TO REFILING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

This case is before the Court for review of pro-se inmate

plaintiff Sammy V. Houston’s form complaint under the screening

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court,

noting that it appeared Houston had failed to acknowledge prior

suits dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, directed Houston to either pay the

remaining balance of the applicable filing fee or show cause why he

should not be barred from proceeding in this action in forma

pauperis under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1 Although

Houston has filed several “responses” to this Court’s show-causeorder, he did not pay the full filing fee, and has not listed those

cases that were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a

claim, contending instead that he does not have copies of his prior

cases and that he cannot adequately remember such cases.

Case 4:04-cv-00888-Y Document 17 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 121
2

A separate order will issue this day to vacate the PLRA order. 

A review of Court records, however, shows that Houston has had

several cases dismissed as either frivolous or for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, including: Houston v.

Belt, et al., No. 9:88-CV-086 (E.D.Tex. Order of Dismissal and

Judgment filed July 2, 1991); Houston v. Hughes, Misc. No. 4:92-

005-E (N.D.Tex. Order filed March 12, 1992); Houston v. Hueszel, et

al., No. 9:95-CV-436 (E.D.Tex. Memorandum Opinion and Order and

Judgment filed February 10, 1998); and Houston v. Keith, et al.,

No. 4:02-CV-068 (N.D.Tex. Order and Judgment filed May 23, 2002).

Copies of the dockets of these cases are attached hereto. In this

case, Houston has not set forth grounds for leave to file in

compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Thus, the undersigned finds

that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action

was improvidently granted and must be vacated,2 and that this case

must be dismissed as barred by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).

It is therefore ORDERED that Sammy V. Houston, TDCJ NO.

356172, be, and is hereby, barred from proceeding in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, except for cases involving an imminent

danger of serious physical injury. 

It is further ORDERED that Sammy V. Houston’s claims in the

above-styled and numbered action be, and they are hereby, DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE to refiling in-forma-pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §

1915, et seq.

SIGNED June 15, 2005.

Case 4:04-cv-00888-Y Document 17 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 122