1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

FRED A. DIXON, JR., #01465237 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv150

PRESIDENT BIDEN, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Fred A. Dixon, Jr., a prisoner confined at the Skyview Unit within the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 

rights lawsuit complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The case was referred 

to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations for the disposition of the case. 

I. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint, (Dkt. #1), is difficult to decipher. Plaintiff mentions no security, 

balanced meals, and Burt Reynolds “blackmailing people.” He also notes having to buy 

commissary and prisoners fighting, causing trouble. 

II. Discussion 

Plaintiff Dixon is no stranger to federal courts in Texas. Court records show that Dixon has 

filed at least three previous lawsuits or appeals which were dismissed as frivolous or for the failure 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted—prior to his filing this lawsuit in December 

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

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 frivolous lawsuits); Dixon v. Angleton 

Case 6:23-cv-00150-JCB-JDL Document 3 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 5
2

Sheriff’s Dept., civil action no. 3:05mc11 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2005) (noting plaintiff’s history of 

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

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.

As set forth above, Dixon has accumulated three strikes prior to filing this March 2023 

lawsuit and, thus, falls under the Act. Consequently, he cannot proceed under the in forma pauperis

statute unless he shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury as of the date of 

the filing of the lawsuit. See Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998). 

To meet the imminent danger requirement of section 1915(g), the threat 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....”). 

Crucially, the burden is on Dixon to show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical 

injury at the time of the filing of his complaint through facts rather than conclusory allegations. 

Case 6:23-cv-00150-JCB-JDL Document 3 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 6
3

See Newman v. Harris, 770 F. App’x 216 (5th Cir. 2019) (emphasis supplied). A prisoner must 

allege specific facts showing that he is under imminent danger of serious physical harm—general 

allegations not grounded in specific facts are not sufficient to invoke the exception to section 

1915(g). See Fuller v. Wilcox, 288 F. App’x 509, 510 (10th Cir. 2008). 

Here, Plaintiff’s conclusory and inchoate claims fail to demonstrate that he is in imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff’s lack of facts is fatal to invoke the exception, and he 

is therefore barred from proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has also been sanctioned multiple 

times for his frivolous litigation. The Northern District of Texas has barred him from filing any 

new civil actions without advance permission. In a separate case, the Northern District sanctioned 

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

any other lawsuits. The docket in Angleton, in which the sanction was imposed, show that Plaintiff 

has not satisfied the sanction; rather, he wrote a letter to the court complaining about the denial of 

counsel and suggesting that the court pay him money instead. 

This Court issued General Order 94-6 on February 2, 1994, to enforce sanctions issued by

other federal courts in Texas. See G.O. 94-6 (“Similarly, orders prohibiting the filing of any new 

pleadings until monetary sanctions are paid will be honored according to the terms specified in the 

order.”). The General Order was issued for the very purpose of stopping abusive practices by 

litigants like Dixon. Courts may honor sanctions issued by another court. See Balawajder v. Scott, 

160 F.3d 1066, 1067-68 (5th Cir. 1999). Given Dixon’s abusive litigation history, this Court should 

honor these sanctions imposed by a sister court—and dismiss this lawsuit because he has not 

satisfied the sanctions imposed against him. 

Case 6:23-cv-00150-JCB-JDL Document 3 Filed 04/05/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 7
4

RECOMMENDATION

For reasons explained above, the Court recommends that Plaintiff be denied in forma 

pauperis status and that the lawsuit be dismissed, with prejudice, as to the refiling of another in 

forma 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 satisfying 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. Finally, it is recommended that should Plaintiff fulfill all of these 

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

to proceed in this lawsuit as though the full filing 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. 

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 5th day of April, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00150-JCB-JDL Document 3 Filed 04/05/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 8