1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

PAUL J. CONNALL, #00418224 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv322

SENIOR WARDEN MTC-ISF §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Paul J. Connall, a parolee currently confined in the East Texas Treatment Facility, 

a.k.a., the East Texas Intermediate Sanctions Facility (ISF),1 in Henderson, Texas, proceeding pro 

se and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 alleging purported 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 

Connall initially filed his lawsuit in the Western District of Texas–Austin Division. The 

Western District transferred Connall’s original complaint to the Eastern District of Texas on June 

29, 2023. (Dkt. #5). 

In his complaint, dated June 18, 2023, Connall asserts claims for false imprisonment, 

double jeopardy, a denial of flat time served, and a denial of good time credits. He contends that 

he should be immediately released. He states that he had a stroke on January 8, 2023. He claims 

1 An Intermediate Sanctions Facility is a facility that provides treatment to parolees who are in violation of their parole 

requirements, e.g., failing required drug testing,—in lieu of the parolee being returned to the Correctional Institutions 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to complete the remainder of their sentence(s).

Case 6:23-cv-00322-JCB-JDL Document 7 Filed 07/05/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2
2

that the ISF is not a medical facility; thus, he should be immediately released. He states without 

explanation or facts, that there are blatant denial of medical treatment and violations of his civil 

rights and constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Connall’s complaint is sparse on details and facts. He seeks $10 million dollars for the violation 

of his rights. 

II. Discussion

Connall is no stranger to the federal courts throughout Texas. Court records show that 

Connall has filed at least three previous lawsuits or appeals which were dismissed as frivolous or 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted—prior to filing this lawsuit. See 

Connall v. Hull, No. 95-10324 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 1995) (unpublished) (affirming district court’s 

dismissal, as frivolous of Connall’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint); Connall v. Armstrong, et al., 

Civil Action No. 6:03-cv-66 (W.D. Tex. May 15, 2003) (dismissing complaint as frivolous); 

Connall v. Armstrong, et al., No. 03-50626 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2003) (unpublished) (dismissing 

appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); Connall v. Dretke, Civil Action No. 6:05-cv-318 

(W.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2005) (dismissing complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) 

and instructing that Connall must obtain prior written consent before filing any further habeas 

corpus or civil action in the Western District of Texas); and Connall v. Franklin, Civil Action No. 

1:22cv1381 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2023) (dismissed as frivolous, no appeal taken).

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.

Case 6:23-cv-00322-JCB-JDL Document 7 Filed 07/05/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3
3

As set forth above, Connall has accumulated three strikes prior to filing this June 18, 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). Connall does 

not assert that the imminent-danger exception applies to his claims. (see Dkt. #1). 

The Fifth Circuit holds that a plaintiff must show “imminent danger at the time that he 

seeks to file his suit in district court or seeks to proceed with his appeal or files a motion to proceed 

IFP.” Banos, 144 F.3d at 884; accord Choyce v. Dominguez, 160 F.3d 1068, 1070 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The threat of harm must be “real and proximate.” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir.

2003) (citations omitted). Conclusory allegations are insufficient to carry that burden. Smith v.

Blount, 258 F. App’x 630, 630 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). Established Fifth Circuit precedent 

requires that civil rights claimants must state specific facts, not conclusory allegations. Brinkmann

v. Johnston, 793 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th

Cir. 1996).

Moreover, 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....”). 

Case 6:23-cv-00322-JCB-JDL Document 7 Filed 07/05/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 4
4

Here, Connall fails to show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at 

the time he filed this lawsuit on June 18, 2023. Connall contends that he had a stroke in January 

2023; however, he does not allege any physical or medical disabilities associated with a stroke that 

place him in imminent danger now. He has not shown that he faces an imminent threat of serious 

physical injury for which time is pressing. 

Because Connall has accumulated at least three-strikes prior to the filing of this lawsuit 

and has not demonstrated that he faces an imminent threat of serious physical injury, this lawsuit 

should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Connall, however, should be allowed a 

reasonable period of time in which to pay the full filing fee and proceed with his lawsuit should

he chose to do so. Connall should note, though, that the payment of the filing fee will not affect an 

analysis for frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, because Connall already has three strikes for the purposes of section 1915(g), 

it is recommended that his lawsuit be dismissed, with prejudice, for purposes of proceeding in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It is also recommended that if Connall pays the 

full filing fee of $402.00 within fifteen (15) days of the date of the order of dismissal, the lawsuit 

will proceed 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 

Case 6:23-cv-00322-JCB-JDL Document 7 Filed 07/05/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 5
5

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 July, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00322-JCB-JDL Document 7 Filed 07/05/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 6