IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DUNCAN J. McNEIL §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-CV-1284-B

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

ET AL. §

§

Respondents. §

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Duncan J. McNeil, an inmate in the Spokane, Washington County Jail, has filed

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated herein, the motion should be denied.

I.

This is an unspecified civil action brought against the United States of America and its

officers and agencies, including the district and bankruptcy courts for the Northern District of Texas,

the U.S. Marshal's Service, the FBI, and the IRS, to compel defendants "to perform [their] duties."

Attached to plaintiff's complaint is a stipulated order on liability and damages entered by a federal

court in the Eastern District of Washington. Although his written submissions are difficult to

decipher, it appears that plaintiff wants this court and the federal agencies named in his complaint

to enforce a foreign judgment against his former employer.

II.

The court sua sponte notes that plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in at least

five prior civil actions filed while he was incarcerated. All five cases were dismissed as frivolous

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01284-B Document 3 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 44
1

 In addition, plaintiff has been deemed a "vexatious litigant" in the Eastern District of Washington, the

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, and the Spokane County Superior Court. See

McNeil v. Brandt, No. C05-1043-RSL (W.D. Wash. Jun. 14, 2005). 

or malicious. See McNeil v. Spokane County Jail, No. 04-371-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2004);

McNeil v. Gregoire, No. 03-372-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2004); McNeil v. Miller, No. 04-378-

AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2004); McNeil v. Tighe, No. 04-379-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2004);

McNeil v. Williams, No. 04-380-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2004).1

 Therefore, under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis unless he is "under imminent

danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff does not allege, nor do the facts

of this case suggest, that he meets this standard. Consequently, this case is barred under the PLRA.

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied. Plaintiff should be

ordered to pay the $250.00 statutory filing fee within 30 days after this recommendation is adopted

by the district judge. If he fails to do so, this case should be dismissed without further notice.

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner

provided by law. Any party may file written objections to the recommendation within 10 days after

being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The failure to file

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th

Cir. 1996).

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01284-B Document 3 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 45
DATED: June 28, 2005.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01284-B Document 3 Filed 06/28/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 46