Hall v. Ughwanogho et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The prisoner civil rights action filed by Darrell Lee Hall, (Dkt. 1 ), is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Hall may move to reinstate this case only if he pays the full amount of the filing fee for a civil action ($405.00) within 30 days from the date of this Order. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge David Hittner) Parties notified. (jww4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
November 26, 2024

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
-HOUSTON DIVISION
DARRELL LEE HALL,
(TDCJ # 01330580),

Plaintiff,
vs.
UVIEOGHENE 0. UGHWANOGHO,
et al.,

Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-24-4556

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Darrell Lee Hall, (TDCJ #01330580), is a Texas state inmate currently held
at the Wallace Pack Unit ~fthe Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional
Institutions Division. Proceeding pro se, he filed a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Uvieoghene 0. Ughwanogho and TDCJ, alleging that
U ghwanogho is interfering with his prescribed medical treatment. (Dkt. 1}. He also
filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which is supported by a
certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement. (Dkts. 2, 4). Because Hall
is not entitled to proceed in formapauperis in this Court, his· action is dismissed as
explained below.
I.

DISCUSSION

Hall is incarcerated, so his action is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform

Act (PLRA), which was enacted, in part, to prevent prisoners from abusing the
privilege of proceeding informa pauperis. See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532,
535 (2015) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)). Under the "threestrikes rule" established in the PLRA, a prisoner may not bring a civil action informa
pauperis if, while he has been incarcerated, three or more of his civil actions or
appeals have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, unless he is in "imminent danger of serious
physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Court records reflect that, since Hall has been incarcerated, he has filed at least •
as frivolous or for failing
four civil actions and appeals that
the courts have dismissed
r
•
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See, e.g., Hall v. Johnson, et al.,
Civil No. 2:96-cv-280 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 1999); Hall v. Sanchez, et al., Civil No ..
4:13-cv-1993 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2013); Hall v. Sanchez, et al., Appeal No. 13-20450
(5th Cir. July 11, 2014); Hall v. Lumpkins, et al., Civil No. 3:ll-cv-515 (S.D. Tex.
May 6, 2015). In addition, the Fifth Circuit has twice sanctioned Hall because of his
repeated frivolous filings in habeas corpus proceedings. See In re Darrell Lee Hall,
Appeal No. 14-20677 (5th Cir. Jan. 21, 2015); In re Darrell Lee Hall, Appeal No.
16-20117 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016). As a result of these prior filings, Hall may not
proceed with this civil action in forma pauperis µnless his pleadings show that he is
in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 191 S(g); Banos v.
2/6

O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).

Hall contends that he satisfies the requirements of the imminent-danger
exception to the three-strikes rule. This exception "operates as a safety valve to
ensure that, despite the filing of frivolous lawsuits in the past, an abusive inmate
facing future imminent serious physical injury by prison officials will still be able to
pursue a judicial remedy to prevent such injury." Castillo v. Bickham, No. 14-2917,
2015 WL 251708, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 20, 2015). To fall within the exception, the
inmate must be in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he files his
complaint in the district court. See Banos, 144 F.3d at 884-85. The threat of injury
must be "real and proximate," Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir.
2003 ), and the inmate must be facing· "a genuine emergency" in which "time is
pressing." Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2003) (per curiam);
see also Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 313 (3d Cir. 2001) ("'Imminent'

dangers are those dangers which are about to occur at any moment or are impending[,
and] [s]omeone whose danger has passed cannot reasonably be described as
someone who 'is' in danger, nor can that past danger reasonably be described as
'imminent."'). Allegations of past harm are not sufficient to trigger the exception.
See Choyce v. Dominguez, 160 F.3d 1068, 1070 (5th Cir. 1998)(per curiam); Stine·
v. Fed. Bureau ofPrisons Designation & Sentence Computation Unit, No. 3:13-cv-

4253-B, 2013 WL6640391,at*l (N.D. Tex.Dec.17,2013). Neither are allegations
3/6

based on speculation about a future potential injury. See Davis v. Stephens, 589 F.
App'x 295,296 (5th Cir. 2015} (per curiam). Neither are allegations of the denial
of routine medical care for conditions that are not immediately life-threatening. See,
e.g., McCoy v. Murray, 600 F. App'x 250, 251 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (a
prisoner's complaints of pain from a prior injury and alleged delays in receiving
medication did not establish that he was in imminent danger of serious physical
injury when he filed his complaint); Jackson v. United States, Civ. No. 4:15-cv-696,
2016 WL 1375591, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2016) (a prisoner's general complaints
about the ongoing nature of an alleged lack of medical care do not meet imminent
danger exception); Gallagher v. McGinnis, Civ. No. A00-1468, 2000 WL 739285
(E.D. La. June 5, 2000) (allegations that the prisoner was not receiving the kind and
amount of medical care he believed was appropriate were not sufficient to show
imminent danger). And neither are complaints that prison medical providers have
implemented treatment protocols different from those recommended by outside
medical specialists. See Estes v. Eastridge, No. 20-10964, 2023 WL 2525054 (5th
Cir. Mar. 15, 2023).
In support of his claim of imminent danger, Hall alleges that he suffers from
chronic neurological and musculoskeletal impairments. (Dkt. 1, pp. 4-:5). Because
of these impairments, he was previously provided with medical passes for a cervical
contour pillow, a zipper shirt, a back brace, a long-handled sponge, and a "geomat"
4/6

mattress. (Id.). However, during a move from one TDCJ unit to another in May
2023, his geomat was lost or misplaced. (Id. at 5). Hall has repeatedly requested
that the geomat be replaced, but Ughwanogho has denied these requests. (Id.). In
addition, during a clinic visit on July 19, 2023, Ughwanogho confiscated a back
brace that Hall alleges was prescribed to help with his lower back pain. (Id.).
Ughwanogho also "declined to follow"_the medical orders from UTMB specialists
and discontinued all the passes for his medically prescribed "accessories." (Id. at 56). Hall alleges that it has been "over one year" since Ughwanogho discontinued his
passes for these medical accessories, and he alleges that his conditions are worsening
because of her actions. (Id. at 7). He alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury because he is not being properly treated for his chronic conditions,
and he is now facing back surgery, cervical spine surgery, and elbow surgery as a
result. (Id. at 8).
While the Court is not unsympathetic to Hall's allegations of pain, he does not
satisfy the imminent-danger exception. Hall filed h~s complaint in mid-November
2024, seeking redress for the revocation of medical passes and the loss of medical
accessories that originally occurred in May and July of 2023. Any danger Hall faced
from the revocation of these medical accessories is no longer imminent, and his
complaints of an on-going denial of routine medical care for over a year do not
demonstrate that he faces a genuine emergency for which time is pressing. In
5/6

addition, Hall's unsupported speculation that his need for surgery is a result of being
denied these medical accessories is not sufficient to establish the kind of "imminent
danger of serious physical injury" necessary to permit a prisoner who has filed
multiple frivolous lawsuits in the pastto proceed under§ 1915(g). Hall's is therefore
not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.

II.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The prisoner civil rights action filed by Darrell Lee Hall, (Dkt. 1), 1s
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. Hall may move to reinstate this case only if he pays the full amount of the
filing fee for a civil action ($405 .00) within 30 days from the date of this
Order.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to the plaintiff. The Clerk will
also provide a copy of this order to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for
the Southern District of Texas at: [e-mail].

SIGNED at Houston, Texas on - - ~
~
C
~. - - - ·, 2024.
~~
-- -a
- , ~---<- -

DAVIDHITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6/6