Trejo v. Collier et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ANTHONY ROBERT TREJO,
(TDCJ # 02568156),
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRYAN COLLIER, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2629
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Anthony Robert Trejo, (TDCJ #2568156), is currently incarcerated at the
Luther Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions
Division. Proceedingpro se, he filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against multiple TDCJ officials concerning multiple alleged violations of his rights
since his return to TDCJ in 2025. 	(Dkt. 1). 	His rambling petition, filed on March
30, 2026, seems to allege that he has been denied access to the law library, that his
computer tablet has been stolen, that his grievances are not being properly processed,
that his Social Security benefits have been improperly withheld, that TDCJ officials
are not following their own policies and regulations, and that his rights were violated
during a disciplinary hearing. (Dkt. 1, pp. 4-6). He also seems to allege that he has
been receiving substandard health care. 	(Id. at 5). • He attached to his complaint
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02629 Document 3 Filed 04/07/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

medical records from a February 13, 2026, incident during which he assaulted a
TDCJ officer in the inmate infirmary, and he appears to contend that he was not
properly treated for injuries he suffered in the ensuing use of force. 	(Dkt. 1-1, pp.
1-2). 	As relief, he seeks money damages, the return of his property, transfer to a
"third.:.party institution" for proper medical treatment, and reinstatement of his Social
Security benefits, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. 	(Dkt. 1, pp. 7, 9).
Trejo did not pay the applicable filing fee for a civil-rights action when he filed his
complaint. 	Because he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, his action is
dismissed as explained below.
I. 	DISCUSSION
Trejo 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 "three-
strikes rule" established in the PLRA, a prisoner may not bring a civil action informa
pauperis if, while he has been incarcerated, three or more qf his civil actions or
appeals have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing 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, while Trejo has been incarcerated, he has filed at
2/6
Case 4:26-cv-02629 Document 3 Filed 04/07/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

least three civil actions that the courts have dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for
failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Trejo v. Eiden, et al.,
No. 5:24-cv-496-XR (W.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2024) (dismissed as frivolous and for failing
to state a claim); Trejo v. JanssenPharm. Prods. LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-00204 (N.D.
Tex. July 23, 2018) (dismissed as frivolous); Trejo v. Dretke, No. 5:05-cv.,00248-C
(N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2005) (dismissed for failing to exhaust administrative remedies,
rendering the action frivolous); Trejo v. Donahue, et al., No. 5:98-cv-00573-PMA
(W.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 1999) (dismissed as frivolous). As a result of these prior filings,
Trejo may not proceed with this civil action informa pauperis unless his pleadings
show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g); Banos v. 0 'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).
The imminent-danger· 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."
3/6
Case 4:26-cv-02629 Document 3 Filed 04/07/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

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 do not 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 WL 6640391, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2013). The threat of imminent serious
physical injury must also be related to the allegations in the plaintiffs complaint.
See, e.g., Judd v. Fed. Election Comm 'n, 311 F. App'x 730, 731 (5th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam); Stine, 571 F. App'x at 354 (rejecting a claim of imminent danger when the
plaintiff did not "plausibly plead any connection between the alleged imminent
danger" and his claims). 	"Prisoners cannot exempt themselves from the operation
of§ 1915(g) by claiming that they are in imminent danger atall times and under all
circumstances." 	Morris v. Walls, No. 19-cv-0006-DC, 2019 WL 12336299, at *3
(W.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2019); see also Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307,315 n.l
(3 d Cir. 2001) (generalized complaints of ongoing harassment, conspiracies to harm ·
the plaintiff, or other forms of retaliation are insufficient to show an imminent danger
of serious physical injury for purposes of§ 1915(g)).
4/6
Case 4:26-cv-02629 Document 3 Filed 04/07/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

Trejo's complaint contains only allegations of past harm. He does not allege
facts showing that he is currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury from
the defendants. 	And his dissatisfaction with the medical care provided for his
February 2026 injury is not sufficient to warrant a finding of imminent danger.
Because Trejo does not allege facts to show that falls within the imminent-
danger exception to the three-strikes rule, he is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action. 	As he has not paid the filing fee and may not proceed in
forma pauperis, his action must be dismissed.
II. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The prisoner civil:.rights action filed by Anthony Robert Trejo, (Dkt. 1), is
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. 	All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. Trejo 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
5/6
Case 4:26-cv-02629 Document 3 Filed 04/07/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

the Southern District of Texas at: Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on --"~"----7-L---_______, 2026.
~DAVID HITTNER
UN1TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6/6
Case 4:26-cv-02629 Document 3 Filed 04/07/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6