White v. Wayne McCollum Detention Center
Filing
6
ORDER: Having considered Plaintiff's pleadings, the file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the 4 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court dismisses without prejudice this action and claims by Mr. White. The court also prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 10/23/2024) (agc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TIMOTHY JAMAL WHITE,
#24B02412
Plaintiff,
v.
WAYNE McCOLLUM DETENTION
CENTER,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-2410-L-BW
ORDER
On October 1, 2024, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 4) was entered, recommending that the court, pursuant
to the “three-strikes” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), summarily dismiss without prejudice this
action by pro se Plaintiff Timothy Jamal White (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. White”) unless he timely
pays the full filing fee for this case. Mr. White has not filed any objections to the Report, and the
time to do so has passed.
Mr. White filed this action against the Wayne McCollum Detention Center alleging
claims of conspiracy, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, and interference with the administration
of the courts, premised on the handling of his mail. Report 2 (citing Doc. 3). The Report
determined that Mr. White has not paid the full filing fee or filed an application seeking to
proceed in forma pauperis. Because this action was filed without the filing fee, it is subject to
review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The Report further determined that
Mr. White has had at least three prisoner civil actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for
failure to state a claim. Report 2. Mr. White does not show that he was in “imminent danger of
serious physical injury” at the time he filed this suit as required by the Fifth Circuit; thus, he is
Order – Page 1
barred from proceeding with this action. Report 3 (citing Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884
(5th Cir. 1998)).
Having considered Plaintiff’s pleadings, the file, record in this case, and Report, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and accepts
them as those of the court. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court dismisses
without prejudice this action and claims by Mr. White.
The court also prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in
good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification,
the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197,
202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Report, the court finds that any appeal of this action
would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. See Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this
certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(5).
It is so ordered this 23rd day of October, 2024.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order – Page 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?