Meadows v. State of Texas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JOSHUA JAMES MEADOWS, §
#159281, §
PLAINTIFF, §
§
V. § CIVIL NO. 3:25-CV-3175-L-BK
§
STATE OF TEXAS, §
DEFENDANT. §
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 issuance of findings and a
recommended disposition where appropriate. Plaintiff Joshua James Meadows, an inmate at the
Lubbock County Detention Center, filed a complaint on the prisoner civil rights complaint form
along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3; Doc. 4. Upon review of the relevant
pleadings and applicable law, this action should be DISMISSED as barred by three strikes.
I. ANALYSIS
The “three-strike” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g), precludes a prisoner from bringing a civil action in forma pauperis if on three or more
prior occasions, while confined as a prisoner, he filed civil actions or appeals in federal court that
were dismissed as frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim. Jackson v. Johnson, 475
F.3d 261, 265 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Brown v. Megg, 857 F.3d 287, 290-91 (5th Cir. 2017)
(“[S]ection 1915(g) comports with the PLRA’s effort ‘to filter out the bad claims filed by
prisoners and facilitate consideration of the good.’” (quoted case omitted)). “A dismissal of a
Case 3:25-cv-03175-L-BK Document 5 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Page 2 of 3
suit for failure to state a claim counts as a strike, whether or not with prejudice.” Lomax v. Ortiz-
Marquez, 590 U.S. 597, 603 (2020). Moreover, “a strike issues only when the entire case is
dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim.” Brown, 857 F.3d at 290-91.
Meadows has accrued three strikes under § 1915(g). Before this lawsuit was filed, he
filed at least three civil actions while confined as a prisoner that were dismissed for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Meadows v. Smart Communications, Inc., 8:25-
CV-2270 (M.D. Fla., Tampa Div. Sep. 2, 2025); Meadows v. The Office of the Attorney Gen.,
5:25-CV-158-H (N.D. Tex., Lubbock Div. Oct. 9, 2025); Meadows v. Covenant Medical Ctr.
ER, 5:25-CV-179-H (N.D. Tex., Lubbock Div., Oct. 15, 2025).
Having accumulated three “strikes,” § 1915(g) precludes Meadows from proceeding in
this action in forma pauperis unless he alleges that he is in “imminent danger of serious physical
injury” at the time of filing the complaint. See Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir.
1998) (per curiam). Meadows has not met that requisite. Although his pleadings are difficult to
decipher and largely illogical, he appears to challenge “the use of an enhancement to illegally
[increase the] severity [his] sentence” in his pending criminal case in Lubbock County. Doc. 3 at
2-6. He alleges that the enhancement amounts to “double jeopardy” and “intimidation to force
[a] plea.” Doc. 3 at 4. He requests the Court to “[l]iberate the People from the unnecessary evil
forbidden from long ago.” Doc. 3 at 5.
Even when liberally construed, however, the complaint is wholly devoid of any allegation
of imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Roberson v. Morgan, 858 F. App’x 158, 159
(5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (“[S]peculative and conclusory allegations are insufficient to make
the showing required to avoid application of the three strikes bar under § 1915(g).”). And
“allegations of past harm are insufficient to show imminent danger within the meaning of §
Case 3:25-cv-03175-L-BK Document 5 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Page 3 of 3
1915(g).” Floyd v. Lumpkin, 2023 WL 1793874, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 7, 2023) (unpublished per
curiam) (citing Banos, 144 F.3d at 884-85). Therefore, Meadows is barred from proceeding
under § 1915(g).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Meadows’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be DENIED and
his complaint should be DISMISSED as barred by the three-strike provision of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Such dismissal is with prejudice to Meadows refiling an in forma pauperis lawsuit
raising the same claims as herein presented, but without prejudice to him refiling this lawsuit
with full payment of filing and administrative fees of $405.00.
SO RECOMMENDED on December 5, 2025.
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-03175-L-BK Document 5 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>