Swint v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROBERT JAMES SWINT,
(Inmate # 80485),
Plaintiff,
vs.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO.H-26-3158
§
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Robert James 	Swint, 	(Inmate 	#80485), 	is 	currently 	incarcerated at the
Columbia County Jail in St. Helens, Oregon. Proceeding prose, he filed a rambling
and largely incoherent letter, which the Court has construed as 	a civil-rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. 	(Dkt. 	1). 	Swint alleges that since the release of the movie
"Armageddon," "mysterous [sic] meteoroids" have been sent to earth to "manually
disarm it." 	(Id.). 	He also refers to Moe's Tavern, "Tax Day," and Job 4:21. 	(Id.).
He requests "88 billion for the job." 	(Id. at 2). 	Swint neither paid the applicable
filing fee nor filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. But because
Swint is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, his action is -dismissed as
explained below.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03158 Document 6 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

I. 	DISCUSSION
Swint 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 in forma
pauperis if, while he has been incarcerated, three or more of 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).
Publicly 	available 	court 	records 	reflect 	that, 	while 	Swint 	has 	been
incarcerated, he has filed at 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 Swint v. Dep 't ofJustice, eta!., No. 1:23-cv-292-MAC-CLS (E.D. Tex.
Dec. 18, 2023) (dismissed as frivolous); Swint v United States, No. 4:21-cv-01793
(S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2022) (dismissed as frivolous);· Swint v. Dean, No . .2:21-cv-
01068-SSV (E.D. La. Dec. 7, 2021) (dismissed as frivolous). 1 As a result of these
1
Publicly available records appear to show that Swint has filed dozens of other
complaints in federal courts across the country. 	See PACER, www.pcl.uscourts.gov
(visited Apr. 22, 2026).
2/5
Case 4:26-cv-03158 Document 6 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

prior filings, Swint may not proceed with this civil action in forma pauperis unless
his pleadings show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g); Banos v. O'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."
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,
3/5
Case 4:26-cv-03158 Document 6 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

2013 WL 6640391, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2013). Further, the threat ofimminent
serious physical injury must be related to the allegations in the plaintiff's 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) .. In addition, "[p]risoners cannot exempt themselves from
the operation of§ 1915(g) by claiming that they are in imminent danger at all 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, 239 F.3d at 315
n.1 	(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)).
Swint's complaint, such as it is, does not allege facts showing that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury from the defendants at this time. 	Swint
does not fall within the imminent-danger exception to the three-strikes rule. 	He is
therefore not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
II. 	CONCLUSION
4/5
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The prisoner civil-rights action filed by Robert James Swint, (Dkt. 	1), is
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Case 4:26-cv-03158 Document 6 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. 	Swint 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: Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov.,,
9o~D~UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5/5
Case 4:26-cv-03158 Document 6 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5