1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

JAY WILLIAMS §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv354

JUDGE NANCY PERRYMAN, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff Jay Williams, a prisoner currently confined in the Henderson County Jail in 

Athens, Texas proceeding pro se, filed this civil rightslawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining 

of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The lawsuit was referred to the undersigned 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order 

for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.

Plaintiff is a well-known vexatious litigator and has filed dozens of lawsuits over the past 

few months. The present case, like many of his past ones, names a large number of public officials 

including state and federal judges and the mayors of the towns of Athens and Gun Barrel City. He 

does not present any coherent statement of claim, but simply asserts that the judges have breached 

the canons of ethics, the courts lack integrity, and the Defendants have committed treason and 

breached unspecified fiduciary duties. He contends that the prosecutors in HendersonCounty are 

“prosecuting without authority” and says that the State of Texas and Henderson County are 

“corporations” but there are no written and signed contracts by any members of the Williamsfamily 

or the Dennis family. Plaintiff further complains that the Court is “refusing to acknowledge Jay 

Williams as one of We the People also known as Government” and refusing to follow federal law. 

Court records show that at least three of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits have been dismissed as 

frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Williams c/oBrown

v. Hillhouse, civil action no. 6:23cv212 (dismissed asfrivolous or for failure to state a claim on June

Case 6:23-cv-00354-MJT-ZJH Document 11 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

18
2

30, 2023); Williams v. Shine, civil action no. 6:23cv219 (dismissed asfrivolous or for failure to state 

a claim on June 30, 2023); Williams v. Barnett, civil action no. 6:23cv222 (dismissed asfrivolous 

or failure to state a claim on June 30, 2023); Williams c/o Williams v. Perryman, civil action no. 

6:23cv214 (dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim on June 30, 2023); Williams v. 

Hillhouse, civil action no. 6:23cv230 (dismissed as frivolous on June 28, 2023); Williams v. Davis, 

civil action no. 6:23cv236 (dismissed as frivolous on June 28, 2023).

28 U.S.C. §1915(g), added by Act of Congress on April 26, 1996 as part of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act, provides that:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action 

or proceeding under thissection if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, 

while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court 

of the United States that was dismissed on the ground that it is frivolous, malicious, 

or failsto state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unlessthe prisoner is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Because Plaintiff has three strikes and thus falls under the Act, he cannot proceed under the 

in forma pauperisstatute unless he showsthat he wasin imminent danger ofserious physical injury 

as of the date of the filing of the lawsuit. See Baños v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998). 

This imminent danger must relate to the allegations of the complaint. Judd v. Federal Elections 

Commission, 311 F.App’x 730, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3464, 2009 WL 423966 (5th Cir., February

20, 2009).

In order to meet the imminent danger requirement of §1915(g), the threat must be “real and 

proximate.” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). Allegations of past harm do 

not suffice; the harm must be imminent or occurring at the time that the complaint or notice of 

appeal is filed, and the exception refers to “a genuine emergency” where “time is pressing.” 

Heimerman v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2003). In passing the statute, Congressintended 

a safety valve to prevent impending harms, not those which had already occurred. Abdul-Akbarv. 

McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3rd Cir. 2001). In that case, the Third Circuit rejected a claim that 

allegations of having been sprayed with pepper spray, combined with a claim that prison officials

Case 6:23-cv-00354-MJT-ZJH Document 11 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

19
3

engaged in “continuing harassment, plots to hurt or kill him, and other forms of retaliation,” 

sufficiently alleged imminent danger.

This Court and others have held that the prisoner must allege specific facts showing he is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of the filing of the lawsuit; general 

allegations not grounded in specific facts indicating serious physical injury is imminent are not 

sufficient to invoke the exception to §1915(g). Fuller v. Wilcox, 288 F.App’x 509, 2008 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 16581, 2008 WL 2961388 (10th Cir., August 4, 2008), citing Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 

1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003); Hyder v. Obama, civil action no. 5:11cv26, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

31300, 2011 WL 1113496 (E.D.Tex., March 11, 2011, Report adopted at 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

31288, 2011 WL 1100126 (E.D.Tex., March 24, 2011); Valdez v. Bush, civil action no. 3:08cv1481,

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118452, 2008 WL 4710808 (S.D.Tex., October 24, 2008).

Plaintiff’s conclusory and inchoate claims wholly fail to show that he is in imminent danger 

of serious physical injury as a result of the allegations forming the basis of his claims. 

Consequently, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the Plaintiff be denied in forma pauperis status and that 

the above-styled civilrightslawsuit be dismissed with prejudice asto the refiling of anotherin forma 

pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims as herein presented, but without prejudice to the refiling 

of this lawsuit upon payment of the full $402.00 filing fee or proof that Plaintiff is in imminent 

danger of serious physical injury related to the basis of the complaint.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendationsshall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.

Case 6:23-cv-00354-MJT-ZJH Document 11 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

20
4

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation 

to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 

(5th Cir. 2017).

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 14th day of August, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00354-MJT-ZJH Document 11 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

21