Williams v. Hooper et al

1 / 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DARRELL ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00319
HOOPER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Darrell Anthony Williams, currently confined at the Nueces County Jail in
Corpus Christi, Texas, has filed this pro se prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (D.E. 1). Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s: (1) motion seeking leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action (D.E. 2); (2) Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (D.E. 6); (3) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (D.E. 7); and (4) Motion
for Court Ordered Surgery or, in the alternative, a medical P.R. bond (D.E. 28). However,
as discussed below, a review of Court records reveals that Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed
IFP and must pay the full filing fee to proceed. It is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion
to proceed IFP (D.E. 2) be DENIED, that all other motions (D.E.’s 6, 7, & 28) be DENIED
as moot, and that his case be dismissed without prejudice.
I.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00319 Document 45 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 9

2 / 9
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,
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 at least three prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim for relief. See Williams v. Thornton, No. 5:13-cv-
1093 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2014) (dismissed as frivolous and malicious); Williams v.
Roman, No. 5:13-cv-980 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2013) (dismissed as frivolous); Williams v.
Johnson, No. 5:05-cv-25 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2005) (dismissed as frivolous). 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
Case 2:25-cv-00319 Document 45 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 9

3 / 9
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,
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).
II.
In his complaint, Plaintiff sues: (1) Nueces County Sheriff Hooper; (2) Nueces
County Medical Director Robert Caro, M.D.; and (3) Nurse K. Bueno. (D.E. 1, pp. 1, 3;
D.E. 34). Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendants have acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of his constitutional rights. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ actions have caused him direct harm because he was not
provided needed medical care while in custody, causing irreparable harm. Id. Plaintiff
claims that Defendants have failed to provide him needed emergency medical care for his
alleged broken neck, broken back, and hernia condition. Id. He seeks compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief. Id.
On December 29, 2025, the undersigned conducted a Spears1 hearing where
Plaintiff was given a further opportunity to explain his claims. (D.E. 41). Plaintiff testified
at the hearing that he was injured in approximately August of 2024 when he was attacked
by someone while he was asleep. Id. at 7. The attack occurred at a residence on 15th Street
in Corpus Christi, Texas while Plaintiff was not in custody of any law enforcement entity.
1 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
Case 2:25-cv-00319 Document 45 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 9

4 / 9
Id. at 6. During the 2024 attack, Plaintiff alleges that his neck and back were broken and
that he developed a hernia in his groin. Id. at 5-6, 17, 20. Plaintiff was paralyzed for eight
days after the attack. Id. at 5. When he awoke after the attack, Plaintiff was taken to either
Doctor’s Regional Hospital or Christus Spohn Shoreline Hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Id. at 8. Plaintiff was hospitalized for approximately one and a half months. Id. at 9-10.
He was released in September or October 2024 after being told by doctors that he needed
surgery on his neck but that a blood infection needed to be cleared up prior to surgery. Id.
at 9-11. He was given antibiotics and release. Id. at 10. Plaintiff had the responsibility to
contact the surgeons and schedule a follow-up appointment. Id. at 11. After his release,
Plaintiff was assaulted on the street. Id. at 12. He returned to the hospital in late 2024 and
was admitted for approximately two to three weeks. Id. Plaintiff was released from the
hospital in early 2025. Id.
Plaintiff does not provide any statements or documentation regarding the state of
his medical conditions from early 2025 until October 2025. Plaintiff was arrested on
October 12, 2025 and taken to the Nueces County Jail, where he remains detained. Id. at
3. He is charged with one felony offense and four misdemeanor offenses. Id. Plaintiff
asserts that jail officials have not provided him with needed emergency medical services
since he was brought to the facility. Id. at 8. Plaintiff has filed several grievances in an
attempt to get his medical needs appropriately addressed. Id.
Plaintiff testified that he has been diagnosed with a herniated disc in his lower back
and herniated discs in his neck. Id. at 18. In response to the undersigned’s question about
Case 2:25-cv-00319 Document 45 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 9

5 / 9
how his neck was feeling, Plaintiff testified that he was in stress and in pain. Id. at 14. He
states, however, that he was prescribed a walker to get around. Id. at 19. According to
Plaintiff, his hernia condition makes it difficult to walk around. Id. Plaintiff testified that
his groin hernia ruptured at some point but that he was seen by Dr. Caro on December 7
and 10, 2025. Id. Plaintiff states that, Dr. Caro instructed Plaintiff that his hernia condition
was not an emergency because “it pops in and out … [and] once it pops out and stays out,
that’s when it’s an emergency.” Id. at 19-21. Plaintiff states that, in response to his
complaints, he has been provided with a neck brace, a back brace, medication (Tylenol,
antibiotics, and Ibuprofen), and a hernia belt to hold his hernia in place. Id. 13-21
According to Plaintiff, Dr. Caro prescribed Plaintiff an antibiotic for an infection resulting
from his hernia condition. Id. at 21-22. Grievances submitted by Plaintiff further show
that: (1) Plaintiff was seen by a medical provider on October 11, 2025 with respect to his
medical issues (D.E. 26, p. 21); (2) Plaintiff was seen by a medical provider on or around
November 18, 2025 for his hernia complaints and given a binder for it (id. at 15); and (3)
Dr. Caro responded to a grievance on December 7, 2025 by stopping Ibuprofen to alleviate
Plaintiff’s concerns about it doing nothing and starting him on Tylenol as requested by
Plaintiff (id. at 2).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaints identify various medical issues involving his neck,
back, and hernia in his groin. Plaintiff’s allegations reflect that the suffered injuries to his
back, neck, and groin in 2024 and that he received extensive treatment in the hospital in
2024 and early 2025 for issues related to these injuries. While the undersigned is
Case 2:25-cv-00319 Document 45 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 9

6 / 9
sympathetic to his current allegations of pain and limitations to his movement arising from
herniated discs in both his neck and pain, such allegations do not demonstrate that he is
imminent danger of serious physical injury such that the denial of more extensive care for
his back and neck issues represents a genuine emergency for which time is pressing. Hall
v. Ughwanogho, No. H-24-4556, 2024 WL 4894003, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2024)
(Hittner, J). Indeed, Plaintiff’s allegations reflect that Plaintiff has not been denied access
to medical staff and providers and that the jail’s medical staff has been responsive to
Plaintiff’s chronic back and neck issues by prescribing pain medications, issuing back and
neck braces, and a walker to move around. As Plaintiff’s allegations and various
submissions reflect that his back and neck issues have not gone untreated, he fails to allege
that he is under imminent danger of serious physical harm. See Richardson v. Dulanes,
No. 1:16cv356 (JCC/TCB), 2016 WL 9450417, at *1 (E.D. Va. Jun. 1, 2016) (finding no
imminent danger of serious physical injury for failure to receive treatment for a
degenerative disc disease in his neck where inmate also alleged he was seen by medical
staff on numerous occasions).
Plaintiff’s allegations further reflect that he currently suffers from a hernia condition
in his groin. However, a review of Plaintiff’s pleadings and other submissions reflect that
he has been seen by a medical provider for his hernia condition, prescribed pain
medications and antibiotics, and provided a hernia binder. While the undersigned again is
sympathetic to the discomfort Plaintiff is undergoing in connection with his hernia
condition, his allegations do not demonstrate that he is under imminent danger of serious
Case 2:25-cv-00319 Document 45 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 9

7 / 9
physical injury such that the denial of more extensive care for groin hernia represents a
genuine emergency for which time is pressing. See Hicks v. TDCJ, No. 3:18-MC-0014,
2018 WL 4953198, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2018) (Hanks, J.) (finding that the inmate’s
allegations fail to satisfy the “imminent danger” exception because they, at most, state the
inmate “suffers pain from his hernia, that his activities are limited, and that the TDCJ has
refused to authorize surgical repair at this time because the hernia is easily reducible”);
Walker v. Chaney, No. C-07-00077, 2007 WL 1032343, at (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2007) (Jack,
J.) (recognizing that “[t]he Fifth Circuit has determined that the denial of a hernia operation
.. did not establish any imminent danger”) (citing Sims v. Kent, 263 F.3d 164, 2001 WL
803864, No. 01-40415 (5th Cir. June 15, 2001) (unpublished)). Similar to Hicks, Plaintiff’s
submissions show that he continues to receive medical attention for his hernia, including
Dr. Caro’s observation in December 2025 that Plaintiff’s hernia condition is not an
emergency. In sum, Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of establishing the “imminent danger”
exception with regard to his hernia condition.2
2 A finding of deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment “must rest on the facts clearly evincing
‘wanton’ actions on the part of the defendants,” Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985), that the
defendants knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded “that risk by failing to take reasonable measures
to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 827 (1994). As Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish an imminent
danger of serious physical injury, it is unnecessary to determine whether Plaintiff can state an underlying deliberate
indifference claim against the named defendants. Nevertheless, it does not appear that Plaintiff’s allegations amount
to deliberate indifference because: (1) Plaintiff’s submissions and Spears hearing testimony do not demonstrate a
wanton disregard for his back, neck, and groin conditions; and (2) Plaintiff received medical treatment for his various
conditions, including doctor’s visits, medical equipment, medications including antibiotics, and evaluations by nursing
staff. At best, Plaintiff’s allegations appear to represent a disagreement with the medical treatment and attention
provided to him, which falls short of stating a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. See Davis v. Lumpkin, 35 F.4th 958, 963 (5th Cir. 2022); Delaughter v. Woodall, 909 F.3d
130, 136 (5th Cir. 2018)
Case 2:25-cv-00319 Document 45 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 9

8 / 9
III.
Because he has failed to allege he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm
at the time he filed this complaint, Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to proceed IFP (D.E. 2) should be DENIED, and it is
recommended that his complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.
It is further recommended that Plaintiff’s pending motion for preliminary injunction
(D.E. 6), emergency motion for temporary restraining order (D.E. 7), and motion for court
ordered surgery (D.E. 28) be DENIED as moot.
Respectfully recommended on January 21, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00319 Document 45 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 9

9 / 9
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 2:25-cv-00319 Document 45 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 9