IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

SAMUEL MARTINEZ §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-112

GABRIEL MARTINEZ §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Samuel Martinez, a prisoner confined at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Gabriel Martinez. Plaintiff requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

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

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges the defendant intentionally closed Plaintiff’s arm in the food slot of his cell

door on May 23, 2023, and then denied Plaintiff medical care for his injuries.

Analysis

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) limits the ability of prisoners from repeatedly filing frivolous or

malicious complaints without payment of the filing fee. The statute provides: 

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

Case 9:23-cv-00112-MAC-CLS Document 3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 12
grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may

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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Section 1915(g) applies to this action because at least three of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits or

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

Martinez v. Barreno, No. 3:97-CV-677 (N.D. Tex. June 18, 1997) (dismissed as frivolous); Martinez

v. Offord, No. 9:16-CV-185 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state

a claim); Martinez v. Hall, No. 9:17-CV-17 (E. D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2020) (dismissed as frivolous and

for failure to state a claim); Martinez v. Mathapathi, No. 7:18-CV-105 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2019)

(dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915).

To meet his burden of showing that he is in imminent danger, Plaintiff must allege specific

facts demonstrating an ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct that is likely to

cause imminent, serious physical injury. Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Vague or conclusory allegations are insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden. White v. Colorado, 157

F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff must demonstrate that he was in imminent danger

at the time he filed the action. Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884-5 (5th Cir. 1998) (revoking

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status after determining that he was not in imminent danger at the time

he filed his notice of appeal); see also Cloud v. Stotts, 455 F. App’x 534, 535 (5th Cir. 2011)

(holding that past threats and assaults at the behest of a defendant are insufficient to show the

plaintiff was in imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint). 

Plaintiff’s allegations of excessive force and denial of medical care on May 23, 2023, are

insufficient to prove that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this

2

Case 9:23-cv-00112-MAC-CLS Document 3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 13
action on June 28, 2023. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is in imminent danger as

a result of Defendant’s actions, he is barred by § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis in this

action. 

Recommendation

Plaintiff should be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The action should be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless Plaintiff pays the $402 filing

fee within fourteen days from the date this Report and Recommendation is entered.

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

3

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 17th day of July, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00112-MAC-CLS Document 3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 14