Herod v. Kroll Restructuring Administration et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DONALD WAYNE HEROD,
(TDCJ # 01538534)
Plaintiff,
versus
KROLL RESTRUCTURING
ADMINISTRATION, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-03549
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
OPINION AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL
The complaint by Plaintiff Donald Wayne Herod is
dismissed as barred by the three-strikes provision of
28 USC §1915(g). Dkt 1.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Luther Unit of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional
Institutions Division. He sues (i) Kroll Restructuring
Administration; (ii) Kroll Business Services; (iii) Kroll
Trustee and Claims Administrator; and (iv) the ENDD Guc
Trust, allegedly under 42 USC §1983. Plaintiff alleges that
he is a creditor in Kroll’s bankruptcy proceedings but that
Defendants are refusing to pay him. He asks for an order
requiring Defendants to pay him money damages. Dkt 1.
Plaintiff proceeds here pro se and seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt 2. A prisoner isn’t allowed
to do so if federal courts have dismissed three or more prior
civil actions or appeals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
This bar doesn’t apply if the prisoner is in imminent danger
of serious physical injury. 28 USC §1915(g).
Plaintiff has had at least three suits dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Herod v Bexley,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03549 Document 5 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
4:16-cv-00808 (SD Tex April 20, 2016) (failure to state
claim); Herod v Cosper, 4:16-cv-00537 (SD Tex March 2,
2016) (failure to state claim); Herod v UTMB, 9:14-cv-
00069 (ED Tex September 26, 2017) (failure to state claim);
Herod v UTMB, 18-40827 (5th Cir August 28, 2019)
(frivolous); Herod v Mills, et al, 2:19-cv-00271 (SD Tex
February 18, 2020) (frivolous); Herod v Mills, 20-40162
(5th Cir May 25, 2021) (imposing three-strikes bar).
Nothing in the current pleadings shows that Plaintiff
faces the type of imminent danger of serious physical
injury that supports an exception to the payment of the
filing fee. See Baños v O’Guin, 144 F3d 883, 885 (5th Cir
1998, per curiam) (prisoner must demonstrate imminent
danger as of time that he seeks leave to file his complaint
or notice of appeal).
The complaint by Plaintiff Donald Wayne Herod is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as barred by the three-
strikes provision of 28 USC §1915(g). Dkt 1.
The complaint will be reinstated if Plaintiff pays the
$405 filing fee within thirty days of the entry of this Order.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
Dkt 2.
Any other motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk of Court must SEND 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.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on , at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
May 12, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-03549 Document 5 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2