Booker v. Raymond et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KEDRIEN D. BOOKER,
(TDCJ # 02425926),
Plaintiff,
vs.
AGBOR RAYMOND, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-473
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Kedrien D. Booker, (TDCJ #02425926), 	is 	currently incarcerated at the
Michael 	Unit 	of 	the 	Texas 	Department 	of 	Criminal •Justice-Correctional
Institutions Division. 	Proceeding pro se, he filed a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple TDCJ officials relating to an incident that occurred
in February 2024 while he was at TDCJ's Ferguson Unit. (Dkt. 1). Booker appears
to allege claims of failing to protect him from an assault by a fellow inmate,
deliberate indifference, and retaliation. 	(Id.). 	As relief, he seeks money damages,
and he requests that criminal charges be brought against the other inmate. (Id. at 6).
In addition to his complaint, Booker filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, but he did not include a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account
statement as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Dkt. 2). Because Booker is no longer
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00473 Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

entitled to proceed informa pauperis, his action is dismissed as explained below.
I. 	DISCUSSION
Booker 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 informapauperis. 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 informa
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).
Court records reflect that, since Booker 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 Booker v. Rushia, et
al., Civil No. 7:24-cv-155-O (N.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2025) (dismissed for failing to state
a claim); Booker v. Armstrong, et al., Civil No. 4:25-cv-591 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17,
2025) (dismissed for failing to state a claim); Booker v. Raymond, et al., Civil No.
6:25-cv-559-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2025) (dismissed as malicious). 	As a result
of these prior filings, Booker may not proceed with this civil action in forma
pauperis unless his pleadings show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical
2/5
Case 4:26-cv-00473 Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

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,
2013 WL 6640391, at* 1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2013). Further, the threat of imminent
3/5
Case 4:26-cv-00473 Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

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 v. McKelvie, 239
F.3d 307, 315 n.1 (3d Cir. 2001) (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)).
Booker's complaint contains only allegations of past harm. He does not allege
facts showing that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury from the
defendants at this time, nor could he as he is no longer housed at the Ferguson Unit.
Because of his prior filings, Booker 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
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The prisoner civil rights action filed by Kedrien D. Booker, (Dkt. 	1), is
4/5
Case 4:26-cv-00473 Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. Booker may move to reinstate this case only ifhe 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.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on --;f---=--0-M----.	~--·fj._3_.____ , 2026.
DAVID HITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5/5
Case 4:26-cv-00473 Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5