IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

NATHANIEL JONES, III §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23cv226

DONALD MUNIZ, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Nathaniel Jones, III, an inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. Plaintiff has

filed a motion seeking to proceed with this matter on an in forma pauperis basis. 

This matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United

States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the

disposition of the case.

Discussion

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits prisoners from repeatedly filing frivolous or malicious

complaints on an in forma pauperis basis, as well as complaints that fail to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. Section 1915(g) provides as follows:

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

[in forma pauperis] . . . if the prisoner has, on three or more occasions . . . brought

an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds

that it is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, unless the person is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Prior to the date on which he filed this lawsuit, at least four lawsuits filed by plaintiff were

dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted.1

As a result, Section 1915(g) is applicable.

 1 Jones v. Harwell, No. 6:97cv83 (W.D. Tex. May 16, 1997) (dismissed as frivolous); Jones v. Harwell, No.

6:97cv176 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 1997) (dismissed as frivolous); Jones v. Tombone, No. 3:98cv85 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12,

1998) (dismissed as frivolous); Jones v. Thomas, No. 1:00cv244 (E.D. Tex. April 19, 2000) (dismissed as malicious).

Case 9:23-cv-00226-MAC-ZJH Document 3 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 22
Plaintiff alleges he was denied access to religious services. His allegations do not

demonstrate he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury on the date he filed this lawsuit. 

Section 1915(g) therefore bars plaintiff from proceeding with this lawsuit on an in forma pauperis

basis. This lawsuit should therefore be dismissed. 

Recommendation

This lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) filed within 14 days after receiving

a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 15th day of December, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00226-MAC-ZJH Document 3 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 23