Snellings v. United States Of America et al

1 / 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SIDNEY RAY SNELLINGS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS CASE AS BARRED BY THE THREE STRIKES RULE
Plaintiff Sidney Ray Snellings, proceeding pro se, has filed this prisoner civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.E. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee. As
discussed below, a review of Court records reveals that Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) because he has accrued at least three strikes under 28 U.S.C.
1915(g). The undersigned, therefore, respectfully recommends that this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prisoner civil rights actions are subject to the provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, including the three strikes rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The three strikes rule
provides that a prisoner who has had, while incarcerated, three or more actions or appeals
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted is prohibited from bringing any more actions or appeals IFP. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Adepegba v. Hammons,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00041 Document 11 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 7

2 / 7
103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). The three strikes rule provides an exception permitting
prisoners who are under imminent danger of physical harm to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Baños, 144 F.3d at 884.
Plaintiff has had five prior civil rights action dismissed as frivolous or for failure to
state a claim for relief. See Snellings v. Montgomery Cnty. Jail Medical Dep’t, No. 4:22-
cv-00687 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2024) (dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief);
Snellings v. Garcia, No. 6:23-cv-00119 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2023) (dismissed for failure to
state a claim for relief); Snellings v. Nichols, No. 4:22-cv-00265 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2022)
(dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief); Snellings v. Montgomery
Cnty. Sheriff Office, No. 4:17-cv-00343 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2024) (dismissed as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim for relief Snellings v. Jennings, No. 4:15-cv-01708 (S.D.
Tex. Aug. 5, 2015) (dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief). Plaintiff, therefore, is
barred from proceeding IFP in this prisoner civil rights action unless he can show he is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
This Court must assess whether Plaintiff is exposed to imminent danger of serious
injury at the time that he filed this action. Choyce v. Dominguez, 160 F.3d 1068, 1071 (5th
Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (citing Baños, 144 F.3d at 884–85). To satisfy the imminent danger
requirement of § 1915(g), the threat must be “real and proximate.” Ciarpaglini v. Saini,
352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). In addition, the harm must be
imminent or occurring at the time the complaint is filed, and the plaintiff must refer to a
“genuine emergency” where “time is pressing.” Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781,
Case 2:26-cv-00041 Document 11 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7

3 / 7
782 (7th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Congress intended a safety valve to
prevent impending harms, not those injuries which allegedly had already occurred. Abdul–
Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc).
Plaintiff is a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal
Institutions Division (“TDCJ”). At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff was housed at the
TDCJ’s McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas. Plaintiff’s allegations and claims arise in
connection with his stay at the McConnell Unit. He recently submitted a Notice of Change
of Address indicating that he is now housed at the Darrington Memorial Unit in Rosharon,
Texas. (D.E. 13).
Plaintiff’s allegations and claims set forth in his complaint are hard to follow as they
are presented in a haphazard and confusing manner. At a Spears1 hearing conducted on
February 25, 2026, Plaintiff testified that he is 51 years old, is partially disabled, and has a
“thyroid disorder disease.” (D.E. 8, p. 9). Plaintiff further explains that he had
“maxillofacial surgery” a couple of years ago and that it is hard for him to speak. Id. at 10.
Plaintiff testified that he has been housed at the McConnell Unit since May 1, 2025 and
reaffirmed he has been in and continues to be confined in administration segregation at the
McConnell Unit.2 Id. at 7-8, 11. Plaintiff primarily complains that he was subjected to
1 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
2 As part of his testimony, Plaintiff indicated he was in transit to the Darrington Memorial Unit. (D.E. 8, p. 12). He
currently is housed at that unit, as reflected in his Notice of Change of Address received by the Court on March 2,
2026. (D.E. 10).
Case 2:26-cv-00041 Document 11 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7

4 / 7
abusive treatment and unsafe conditions while housed in administrative segregation, in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (D.E., pp. 1, 5-7; D.E. 8, p. 11).
Plaintiff cites the following unsanitary and unsafe conditions while housed in
administrative segregation: the presence of disease-carrying prisoners, inadequate heating
or central air conditioning, the presence of black mold, and exposure to human waste. (D.E.
1, pp. 5-6). Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations regarding these conditions lack sufficient
detail to show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he
instituted this lawsuit on January 16, 2026.3 See Morris v. Walls, No. MO:19-CV-00006-
DC, 2019 WL 12336299, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2019) (recognizing that vague and
conclusory allegations of imminent danger, as opposed to specific facts, are insufficient);
Miller v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, No. 6:16cv436, 2016 WL 3267346, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
Jun. 15, 2016) (“[G]eneral allegations not grounded in specific facts indicating serious
physical injury is imminent are not sufficient to involve the exception to § 1915(g)”).
Plaintiff next states that he has been subjected to significant health and safety risks
at the McConnell Unit by being exposed to rat poison and germ-infected food. (D.E. 1, p.
6). Plaintiff alleges he has been deprived of healthy foods and liquids, namely water, milk,
coffee, and juice. (D.E. 1, p. 8; D.E. 1-1, p. 1). Plaintiff testified at the Spears hearing that
he suffered both liquid and food deprivation during his stay at the McConnell Unit. (D.E.
3 Under the prison mailbox rule, an inmate’s pleading is deemed filed on the date the pro se inmate submits his
pleading to prison authorities for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Plaintiff’s original
complaint was signed and dated January 16, 2026. (D.E. 1-1, p. 8). The undersigned will assume that he deposited
the complaint with McConnell Unit prison authorities for mailing on the same day. Thus, the undersigned deems the
original complaint (D.E. 1) to have been filed on January 16, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00041 Document 11 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 7

5 / 7
8, pp. 13-14). As a result, Plaintiff explains that he suffered from dehydration. Id. He
acknowledges, however, receiving medical attention for his dehydration. Id. Plaintiff
explains further that guards fed him rat poison whenever he was provided meals on a tray
or in a sandwich. Id.
Plaintiff’s allegations reflect that he was fed sandwiches and other meals on a tray
at the McConnell Unit but that he did not receive anything to drink. Id. at 14. Despite
complaining about the alleged lack of liquids and the fact his food was laced with germs
and rat poison, Plaintiff indicates that he suffered from dehydration only. Plaintiff does
not describe the severity of his dehydration and acknowledges he received medical
attention for dehydration at the McConnell Unit sometime in late 2025. See Johnson v.
Inge, No. 3:22-cv170-KHJ-MTP, 2023 WL 4697112, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Jun. 30, 2023),
adopted, 2023 WL 4687208 (S.D. Miss. Jul. 21, 2023) (“Where a plaintiff is receiving
medical care, courts have declined to find an imminent danger of serious physical injury.”).
The Fifth Circuit has held that “specific and detailed allegations of food
contamination are sufficient to demonstrate imminent danger.” Prescott v. UTMB
Galveston Texas, 73 F.4th 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Camp v. Putnam, 807 F. App’x
303, 307 n.2 (5th Cir. 2020)). However, Plaintiff’s allegations of being fed meals with
germs and rat poison are, for the most part, conclusory and speculative. He further
acknowledges that, while having poison in his system, he received medical attention in the
form of having his blood drawn. (D.E. 8, p. 11). Plaintiff otherwise fails to describe the
severity of any symptoms suffered or indicate he was at risk for contracting any illness
Case 2:26-cv-00041 Document 11 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 7

6 / 7
from the meals considered to be life threatening. Cf. Camp, 807 F. App’x at 307 n. 2
(holding that plaintiff’s allegations “that the kitchen mixes spoiled food with new food,
contaminating the entire meal and creating the risk of contracting salmonella and food
poisoning” was sufficient “[b]ecause salmonella and food poisoning can be life threatening
illnesses”). Overall, Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the alleged deprivation of liquids
and receipt of food laced with germs and rat poison fail to demonstrate he was in imminent
danger of serious physical injury such that a genuine emergency existed for which time
was pressing on January 16, 2026.
Because he has failed to allege he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm
at the time he filed this lawsuit, Plaintiff should be barred from proceeding IFP.4
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be
DISMISSED without prejudice and that the Clerk of Court be INSTRUCTED to send
notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District
of Texas at Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov.
ORDERED on March 5, 2026.
_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
4 The undersigned recognizes the severity of Plaintiff’s claims concerning the alleged unsanitary conditions at the
TDCJ facility and has not engaged in assessing the credibility of Plaintiff’s allegations. However, some of Plaintiff’s
claims are border-line delusional. To the extent that any of Plaintiff’s claims may not be delusional and
understanding the imminent danger analysis is assessed at the time Plaintiff filed this action, the Court notes
Plaintiff has been transferred and is no longer subject to the alleged complained of conditions.
Case 2:26-cv-00041 Document 11 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7

7 / 7
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of
plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Case 2:26-cv-00041 Document 11 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 7