Warfield v. Pam Lychner State Jail

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered. This action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This dismissal counts as a strike under section § 1915(g). Final judgment is entered by separate order. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LARRY WARFIELD,
Plaintiff,

v.
PAM L YCHNER STATE JAIL,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

June 28, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-1664

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
Larry Warfield is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In this suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, he alleges that he was denied his civil rights when he was served unsuitable food.
Complaint at 4. Warfield has not paid the filing fee.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, a prisoner who has had three or more
prisoner actions dismissed by federal courts as frivolous or malicious may not file another action
without prepaying the filing fee unless the prisoner shows imminent danger. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996). Warfield has had at least three such
dismissals. He is no longer allowed to proceed without prepaying fees unless he can show imminent
danger. See Warfield v. Pam Lychner State Jail, No. 4: 17-cv-1637 (S.D. Tex. June 7, 2017);

Warfieldv. Unidentified Medical Personnel, No.4: 17-cv-1636 (S.D. Tex. June 7, 2017); Warjieldv.
Unidentified Officer, No.4: 17-cv-1638 (S.D. Tex. May 31, 2017). Warfield's present filing does not
allege any facts showing that he faces an immediate danger of harm that warrants waiving the fee
requirement. SeeChoycev. Dominguez, 160F.3d 1068,1071 (5thCir.1998);Banosv. O'Guin, 144
F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998).

In light of the pleadings and his litigation history, Warfield fails to show that he is eligible to
proceed without prepaying fees. In addition, he fails to allege facts that state a cause of action on
which relief could be granted. This action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). This dismissal counts as a strike under section § 1915(g). Final judgment is entered by
separate order.
SIGNED on June 28, 2017, at Houston, Texas.

Chief United States District Judge