IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

FRED A. DIXON, JR., #01465237 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv053

BOSS UNKNOWN, SKYVIEW UNIT §

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Fred A. Dixon, Jr., an inmate of the Skyview Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se, filed this civil lawsuit without an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) or the payment of the $402.00 filing fee. The case was referred to the 

undersigned for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of 

the case. 

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

Prison Litigation Reform Act, provides the following:

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

or proceeding under this section 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 fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, unless the 

prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Plaintiff has already accumulated more than three strikes for the purposes of this statute. See Dixon 

v. Skyview Unit, No. 3:22-cv-192 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 15, 2022) (“Court records confirm that Dixon is 

a ‘three-strikes’ inmate who is barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying the 

filing fee. See Dixon v. Montford Security, Civil No. 5:15-CV-00138-C (N.D. Tex. July 1, 2015) 

(outlining Dixon’s extensive record of filing frivolous lawsuits).”). In fact, “Dixon has been 

Case 6:23-cv-00053-JCB-KNM Document 3 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 4
2

sanctioned previously for abusing judicial resources, and the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas has barred Dixon from filing any new civil actions without advance 

written permission.” Id. at 3 n.1.

To meet the imminent danger requirement of Section 1915(g), the threat of serious physical 

injury must be “real and proximate.” See Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). 

Allegations of past harm do not suffice; instead, 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” in which “time is pressing.” See Heimerman v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 

2003); see also Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 2001) (“Someone whose 

danger has passed cannot be reasonably be described as someone who ‘is’ in danger, nor can that 

past danger reasonably be described as ‘imminent.’”); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 

(11th Cir. 1999) (“Congress’ use of the present tense in § 1915(g) confirms that a prisoner’s 

allegation that he faced imminent danger sometime in the past is an insufficient basis to allow him 

to proceed in forma pauperis....”). Moreover, to establish an imminent danger for the purpose of 

Section 1915(g), a plaintiff’s factual allegations must “not [be] fanciful, fantastic, or delusional.” 

Jones v. Hutto, No. 3:19-CV-1359-N-BN, 2019 WL 3307068, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 11, 2019), 

report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:19-CV-1359-N, 2019 WL 3304791 (N.D. Tex. July 

23, 2019).

Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy that standard. His broad and generalized allegation 

that inmates at the Skyview Unit are being denied access to medical care and food services cannot 

support a finding of real, imminent injury. The court should therefore bar Plaintiff from proceeding 

in forma pauperis in this case and dismiss it for nonpayment of the filing fee.

Case 6:23-cv-00053-JCB-KNM Document 3 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 5
3

In addition, court records show that the Northern District of Texas has sanctioned Plaintiff 

$100.00 and directed that he must pay this sanction before he can even seek leave of court to file any 

other lawsuits. The docket of Dixon v. Angleton Sheriff’s Department, civil action no. 3:05mc11, 2005 

WL 309507 (N.D. Tex., February 5, 2005) in which the sanction was imposed, shows that Plaintiff has 

not satisfied the sanction. This court is bound by the sanctions imposed by the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals and honors sanctions imposed by other federal district courts in the State of Texas. See General 

Order No. 94-6 (E.D. Tex., February 2, 1994); Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1068 (5th Cir. 

1998). Plaintiff may not proceed until he provides proof that he has satisfied the sanctions imposed 

upon him by the Northern District of Texas, in addition to satisfying the requirements of Section 

1915(g). 

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Plaintiff should be denied leave to proceed without prepayment of 

the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and summarily dismiss this action with prejudice as 

to the refiling of another in forma pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims, but without prejudice to 

the refiling of this lawsuit upon the satisfaction of three conditions: (1) proof of satisfaction of the 

$100.00 sanction imposed by the Northern District of Texas; (2) receipt of written permission to file a 

new lawsuit; and (3) payment of the full $402.00 filing fee or proof that Plaintiff is in imminent danger 

of serious physical injury as of the time of the filing of the complaint. Should Plaintiff fulfill all of 

these conditions within 15 days after the date of entry of dismissal of the present case, he should be 

allowed to proceed in this lawsuit as though the full fee had been paid from the outset. 

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. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which an objection is 

made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s proposed 

Case 6:23-cv-00053-JCB-KNM Document 3 Filed 01/31/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 6
4

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 Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). 

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), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending 

the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st day of January, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00053-JCB-KNM Document 3 Filed 01/31/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 7