1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

FRED A. DIXON JR. #01465237 §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv54

SKYVIEW CORRESPONDENT §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff Fred Dixon, a prisoner currently confined in the Skyview Unit of the Texas 

Department of CriminalJustice, Correctional Institutions Division proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights lawsuit 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.

I. The Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint says that he has been blocked from the court in the Eastern District of 

Texas and that Brazoria County employees who also work at the prison will not pick up mail or hand 

it out on time. The Court notes that it is approximately 200 miles from Angleton, Texas, the county 

seat of Brazoria County, to Rusk, Texas, where the Skyview Unit is located.

II. Discussion

Court records show that the Plaintiff Fred Dixon has filed at least three previous lawsuits or 

appeals which were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. See Dixon v. Skyview Unit, civil action no. 3:22cv192 (S.D.Tex., June 15, 2022) 

(observing that Plaintiff has three strikes); Dixon v. Montford Security, civil action no. 5:15cv138 

(N.D.Tex.,July 15, 2015) (outlining Plaintiff’s extensive record of filing frivolouslawsuits); Dixon

v. Angleton Sheriff’s Department, civil action no. 3:05mc11, 2005WL309507 (N.D.Tex., February

Case 6:23-cv-00054-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 02/14/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3
2

5, 2005), Report adopted at 2005 WL 544198 (N.D.Tex., March 8, 2005) (noting plaintiff’s history 

of filing frivolous lawsuits despite previous sanctions and imposing a sanction of $100.00).

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 pauperis statute unless he showsthat he was in 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 (7thCir. 2003). In passing the statute,Congressintended 

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

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 

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

Case 6:23-cv-00054-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 02/14/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 4
3

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, 2011WL1100126 (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 at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. Consequently, he is barred from 

proceeding in forma pauperis.

In addition, court records show that the Plaintiff Fred Dixon has been sanctioned multiple

timesfor hisfrivolouslitigation. The Northern District of Texas has barred him from filing any new 

civil actions without advance written permission, and, in a separate case, sanctioned him $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, in which the sanction was 

imposed, shows that Plaintiff has not satisfied the sanction; instead, he wrote a letter to the court 

complaining about being denied counsel and suggesting that the court should pay him money 

instead.

This Court, the Eastern District of Texas, 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). Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the sanctions which have been 

imposed upon him, he may not proceed until he provides proof that he has done so. He must also 

satisfy the requirements of §1915(g).

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

Case 6:23-cv-00054-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 02/14/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 5
4

pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims as herein presented, 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 from a judge 

of this Court to file a new lawsuit; and (3) payment of the full $402.00 filing fee or proof that 

Plaintiff isin imminent danger ofserious physical injury as of the time of the filing of the complaint. 

It is further recommended that should Plaintiff fulfill all of these conditions within 15 days after the 

date of entry of dismissal of the present case, he be allowed to proceed in this lawsuit as though the 

full fee had been paid from the outset.

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

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

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objectionswithin 14 days after being served with a copy.

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).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of February, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00054-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 02/14/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 6