Meadows v. State of Texas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JOSHUA JAMES MEADOWS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
v. § Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-3175-L-BK
§
STATE OF TEXAS, §
§
Defendant. §
ORDER
On December 5, 2025, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 5) was entered, recommending that the court deny Plaintiff’s
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4), and dismiss this action as barred by the three-strikes
provision of pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Report notes that such dismissal should be with
prejudice to Plaintiff refiling an in forma pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims, but without
prejudice to him refiling this lawsuit with full payment of the $405 for filing and administrative fees.
On December 29, 2025, the court received a one-paragraph letter from Plaintiff that was
docketed as Plaintiff’s “Notice of Identity” (Doc. 28) and contains nonsensical statements such as
“I am myself.” Even construing this document as a timely objection to the Report, it fails to provide
any valid basis for rebutting the magistrate judge’s factual or legal analysis, or her recommendation.
The court, therefore, overrules the objection.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, and having conducted
a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which Plaintiff objected, the court determines that
the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and it accepts them as those of the
Order – Page 1
Case 3:25-cv-03175-L-BK Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

court. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4), and
dismisses this action as barred by the three-strikes provision of pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Dismissal is with prejudice to Plaintiff refiling an in forma pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims,
but without prejudice to him refiling this lawsuit with full payment of the $405 for filing and
administrative fees.
The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good
faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court
accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and
n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Report, the court finds that any appeal of this action would
present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff, however, may challenge this finding pursuant to Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F. 3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997), by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal with the Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, within 30 days
of this order.
Because Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes, he cannot file any new lawsuit or appeal
without first prepaying the filing fee, unless he can show that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has not made the required showing of imminent
danger of a serious physical injury in this case. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of the initial
partial payment provision of Section 1915. Accordingly, if Plaintiff appeals, he must pay the
appellate fee in full. As explained, however, Plaintiff may challenge this determination by filing a
separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, with the Fifth Circuit, within 30 days of this
order.
Order – Page 2
Case 3:25-cv-03175-L-BK Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

It is so ordered this 11th day of February, 2026.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order – Page 3
Case 3:25-cv-03175-L-BK Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>