IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LESTER JON RUSTON, #26834-177, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:06-CV-0238-B

) ECF

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, )

Defendant. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in

implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his

signature thereto, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Parties: Plaintiff is currently confined at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield,

Missouri, pursuant to an order of commitment filed on November 18, 2005, in No. 3:04cr191-G

by a judge of this court. Defendant is the United States Secret Service. The Court did not issue

process in this case pending preliminary screening.

Statement of Case: The complaint purports to be a civil suit for damages against the

United States Secret Service pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). 

The complaint was initially filed in the District of Columbia, which in turn transferred it to this

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00238-G Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 21
1 For the reasons stated in the order, it is clear that venue is proper in the Northern

District of Texas, where the alleged conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s FTCA claim occurred.

2 The judgment in No. 3:04cv1517-K is one of at least three judgments in which

complaints filed by Plaintiff in this District were dismissed because the filing fee had not been

paid after it was determined that he was subject to the three-strike provision of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g).

2

court on January 11, 2006.1

Findings and Conclusions: Plaintiff’s decision to file his complaint initially in the

District of Columbia was not an inadvertent mistake on his part as he was well aware because of

the filing of numerous frivolous lawsuits in the Northern District of Texas, that he was barred

from filing any further actions in this District unless he tendered the required filing fee with his

complaint or first obtained judicial permission to file a subsequent civil complaint. See Ruston

v. Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, et al., No. 3:04cv1517-K, Amended Judgment filed on

September 14, 2004.2

As reflected in his initial pleadings, Plaintiff has not paid the required $250.00 filing fee,

but seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00238-G Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 22
3

RECOMMENDATION:

Because Plaintiff has neither paid the required filing fee nor has he filed a motion for

permission to file his complaint in this District, as required by the above referenced amended

judgment, it is recommended that his complaint be dismissed. 

A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.

Signed this 28th day of February, 2006.

____________________________________

WM. F. SANDERSON, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that

you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this

recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.

1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law accepted by the district court.

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00238-G Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 23