IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

GEORGE A. JOHNSTON and §

PAUL JEFFREY CONNALL #418226

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv411

UNKNOWN WARDEN, et al. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This civil lawsuit was purportedly filed by George Johnson, a resident of Katy, Texas. But 

it referenced a “co plaintiff,” Paul Jeffrey Connall, and is devoted entirely to seeking vindication 

of Connall’s rights with regard to parole. Connall is a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice whose history of frivolous litigation bars him, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), from 

proceeding without full payment of the filing fee absent exigent circumstances not present here. 

(See Dkt. #4 at 2–3.) The case was referred to the undersigned for findings of fact, conclusions of 

law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On August 23, 2023, the Court observed the discrepancies above concerning the true 

Plaintiff and nature of this suit and concluded that it appeared to be an attempt by Connall to assert 

claims without payment of the filing fee. (Dkt. #4.) Accordingly, the Court gave both Plaintiffs

thirty days to satisfy their respective filing fee requirements and to file their own amended 

complaints limited to asserting their own claims. (Id.) The order expressly cautioned that failure 

to comply could result in dismissal. (Id. at 4.)

Case 6:23-cv-00411-JCB-JDL Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 28
2

Neither Plaintiff has complied with either aspect of that order. Mail sent by the Court to 

Plaintiff Johnston at the address provided in the complaint was returned to the Court with the 

notation that “George A. Johnston has never lived at this address.” (Dkt. #5.) This development 

confirms the Court’s belief that this lawsuit at its inception was an effort by Paul Connall to 

perpetrate a fraud upon the Court.

A district court may dismiss an action for the failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply

with any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 

1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (“The court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte, 

without motion by a defendant.”). Dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order 

is an extreme sanction that should be employed only when “the plaintiff’s conduct has threatened 

the integrity of the judicial process [in a way that] leav[es] the Court no choice but to deny that 

plaintiff its benefit.” McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Rogers v. 

Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1982)). A court should consider lesser sanctions, such as 

fines, costs, damages, conditional dismissals, and dismissal without prejudice, among other lesser 

measures, prior to dismissing an action with prejudice. McNeal, 842 F.2d at 793.

The Fifth Circuit has explained the criteria for dismissal with prejudice in this 

circumstance. First, such dismissal requires “both (1) a clear record of delay or contumacious 

conduct by the plaintiff, and (2) that a lesser sanction would not better serve the best interests of 

justice.” McNeal, 842 F.2d at 790. The Court must also find “proof of one of the following 

‘aggravating factors’—(1) the plaintiff's personal contribution to the [conduct], (2) the defendant’s 

actual prejudice because of the [conduct], and (3) [conduct] that can be characterized as 

intentional.” Id.

Case 6:23-cv-00411-JCB-JDL Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 29
3

As the Court has already observed, Plaintiff Connall has three “strikes” for the purpose of 

Section 1915(g). See Connall v. Warden MTC-ISF, No. 6:23CV321, 2023 WL 5217811, at *3 

(E.D. Tex. July 5, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:23-CV-00321, 2023 WL 

5217796 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2023) (collecting Plaintiff’s prior strikes and dismissing on that 

basis). At least one previous dismissal and another recommendation to dismiss without prejudice 

on that basis, entered before the complaint in this case was signed on August 6, 2023, were not 

sufficient to deter his misconduct him this case. See id.; Connall v. Senior Warden MTC-ISF, No. 

6:23CV322, 2023 WL 5217810, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2023), report and recommendation 

adopted, No. 6:23-CV-00322, 2023 WL 5217797 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2023) (dismissing pursuant 

to Section 1915(g)). 

Plaintiff Connall personally and intentionally submitted his own claims in this case under 

the name of another individual, who has never resided at the address provided on the complaint 

and had no personal interest in Connall’s claims, and he clearly attempted to evade the three-strikes 

bar by filing an IFP application on that person’s behalf. Connall’s attempt in this case to deceive 

the Court into considering claims he knows he is barred from asserting without payment is even 

more egregious than submitting a false IFP application, which would warrant dismissal on its own.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) (providing that a court shall dismiss at any time if it determines that the 

plaintiff’s allegation of poverty is untrue). It is personal, intentional misconduct that has not been 

deterred by previous dismissals without prejudice pursuant to Section 1915(g). This constitutes 

action that threatens the judicial process—thereby warranting a dismissal with prejudice. See 

Osoria v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., No. 11-CV-4296, 2013 WL 4501450, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2013) 

(“As the purpose of the IFP application is to encourage forthrightness and discourage fraud on the 

court, dismissal with prejudice has been viewed as an appropriate sanction for lying on the IFP.”); 

Case 6:23-cv-00411-JCB-JDL Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 30
4

Sinclair v. Mobile 360, Inc., No. 1:07CV117, 2011 WL 3804413, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2011)

(finding that plaintiffs who submitted fabricated filings to the court “attempted to deceive and 

defraud the Court, undermined the integrity of the judicial process, and engaged in an ongoing 

abuse of the judicial process that warrants this Court’s exercise of its inherent power to dismiss 

this action with prejudice”).

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff Connall be denied leave to 

proceed as a pauper and that his claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with an 

order of the Court and to take the steps necessary to prosecute this case and for his willful deception 

in an effort to avoid the filing fee for this case. Because Plaintiff Johnston—if he exists—cannot 

assert claims based on alleged violations of Connall’s rights, dismissal of his claims with prejudice 

is also appropriate.

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may 

serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and 

recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy 

shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and 

recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of October, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00411-JCB-JDL Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 31