No. 6:23-cv-00355

Jay Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

United States Court,

Defendant.

ORDER 

Plaintiff Jay Williams, an inmate at the Henderson County 

Jail, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit complaining of alleged 

violations of his rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case 

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. On 

August 1, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report 

recommending that this case be dismissed with prejudice 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Doc. 4. The Magistrate 

Judge further recommended that no new lawsuits be accepted 

from plaintiff Jay Williams unless such lawsuit is filed by a 

licensed attorney enrolled to practice in the U.S. District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas and the full filing fee is paid at 

the outset of the case. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the 

report and recommendation but has filed a handwritten coupon as 

an ostensible attempt at payment in this matter, as well a motion 

for release and a motion to change venue. Docs. 5, 6.

When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for 

clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s 

report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court 

accepts its findings and recommendation.

Case 6:23-cv-00355-JCB-JDL Document 7 Filed 09/12/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28
- 2 -

Since May 1, 2023, plaintiff has filed thirty-three cases in this 

district alone.

1 He has neither paid a filing fee nor submitted an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff has been made aware that a handwritten “coupon” is 

not an acceptable form of payment and does not therefore affect 

the court’s screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Case No. 

6:23-cv-00258 (Doc. 3). Moreover, plaintiff has been repeatedly 

warned of the frivolous nature of his allegations, and has, as a 

result, accumulated three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated 

in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534–

41 (2015).

In addition, plaintiff’s filings now include direct attacks on the 

federal judiciary and its judges. At this point, plaintiff has sued 

every judge in the Tyler Division as well as the United States 

Courts. See, e.g., 6:23-cv-298, 6:23-cv-354, 6:23-cv-355. 

Consuming scarce judicial time and resources with dozens of 

blatantly false accusations is a plain example of abuse of the 

judicial process. The court agrees that this conduct is 

sanctionable, and the court finds that the appropriate time to 

impose sanctions has arrived. See Matter of United Markets Int’l, 

Inc., 24 F.3d 650 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 946 (1994); 

Vinson v. Heckmann, 940 F.2d 114 (5th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, this case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The dismissal of this action under 

§ 1915A(b)(1) counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 

Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 388. Furthermore, it is ordered that no new 

lawsuits be accepted from plaintiff Jay Williams unless such 

lawsuit is filed by a licensed attorney enrolled to practice in the 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the full 

1 The case numbers are: 6:23-cv-211, 6:23-cv-212, 6:23-cv-213, 6:23-cv-214, 6:23-

cv-215, 6:23-cv-216, 6:23-cv-217, 6:23-cv-218, 6:23-cv-219, 6:23-cv-220, 6:23-cv221, 6:23-cv-222, 6:23-cv-223, 6:23-cv-224, 6:23-cv-225, 6:23-cv-226, 6:23-cv227, 6:23-cv-228, 6:23-cv-229, 6:23-cv-230, 6:23-cv-236, 6:23-cv-256, 6:23-cv257, 6:23-cv-258, 6:23-cv-260, 6:23-cv-263, 6:23-cv-287, 6:23-cv-298, 6:23-cv300, 6:23-cv-301, 6:23-cv-353, 6:23-cv-354, and 6:23-cv-355.

Case 6:23-cv-00355-JCB-JDL Document 7 Filed 09/12/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 29
- 3 -

filing fee is paid at the outset of the case. See, e.g., Flores v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Just., No. 5:21-cv-11, 2021 WL 8055537, at *2 (E.D. Tex. 

Feb. 4, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:21-cv-11, 

2022 WL 1105671 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2022). All motions pending 

in this civil action are denied.

So ordered by the court on September 12, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00355-JCB-JDL Document 7 Filed 09/12/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 30