Atkins v. State of Texas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JEREMY WAYNE ATKINS, §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No. 3:25-cv-02187-K-BT
§
STATE OF TEXAS, et al., §
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se case was
referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the
entry of findings and a recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon review
of the relevant pleadings and applicable law, this action should be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and malicious.
On August 12, 2025, Jeremy Wayne Atkins filed a pro se complaint (ECF No.
3) against Defendants State of Texas, Hunt County, and Keli Aiken. Atkins claims
that he faced an “unlawful arraignment attempt . . . without arrest, formal service,
or personal jurisdiction” in a Hunt County criminal proceeding. Compl. at 1. He
asks that the Court issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary
injunction “prohibiting any further criminal proceedings or issuance of warrants”
in his criminal case. Id.
As already explained by the District Judge, Atkins recently sought nearly
identical relief in this Court in a case involving the same parties. Order at 1 (ECF
Case 3:25-cv-02187-K-BT Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
No. 7) (citing Atkins v. Aiken, 3:25-cv-1673 (N.D. Tex. June 29, 2025)). Indeed, he
previously requested a TRO “immediately halting prosecution, hearings, and
arraignment in Hunt County Case No. 35491CR.” Atkins v. Aiken, 3:25-cv-1673,
TRO at 2 (ECF No. 1). The Court denied this request and dismissed the case sua
sponte for failure to state a claim. See id., Judgment (ECF No. 69). Atkins appealed
this judgment to the Fifth Circuit on August 2, 2025. See id., Notice of Appeal (ECF
No. 70). The Fifth Circuit denied this appeal on December 9, 2025. See id., Order
of USCA (ECF No. 88).
Thus, Atkins’s complaint in this action is subject to review for frivolousness
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
“IFP complaints may be dismissed as frivolous when they seek to relitigate
claims which allege substantially the same facts arising from a common series of
events which have already been unsuccessfully litigated by the IFP plaintiff.”
Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989). That is the case here, where
Atkins’s allegations are a duplicate of the claims previously dismissed by this
Court.
Even under the most deferential review, the Court concludes that Atkins
merely reasserts his previous claims relating to his purported injury, which arose
from the same facts and course of events and involved the same Defendant. Despite
Atkins’s attempt to add the State of Texas and Hunt County as parties, he is still
unable to state a claim for relief. See Lewis v. Williamson Cnty., No. 24-50461,
Case 3:25-cv-02187-K-BT Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
2024 WL 4930392, at *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2024) (finding the action duplicative
despite the plaintiff’s attempt to add new allegations because the complaint arose
from the same incident).
Thus, this action is duplicative and should be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as frivolous and malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
SO RECOMMENDED.
December 16, 2025.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection
must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, the basis
for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely
incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is
not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party
from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge
that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain
error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996),
modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time
to object to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-02187-K-BT Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>