IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
KENNY TRAVIS, JR. PLAINTIFF
ADC #119406
v. Case No: 4:24-CV-00924-JM
CHRISTOPHER R. WARTHEN, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Travis Kenny, Jr., an inmate at the Maximum Security Unit of the Arkansas
Division of Correction, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2).
Mr. Travis’s complaint must be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to the three-strikes
provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Under the three-strikes provision of the PLRA, a prisoner’s in forma pauperis action must
be dismissed, sua sponte or upon a motion of a party, if the prisoner has “on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Eighth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of the
three-strikes provision. Higgins v. Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797, 801 (8th Cir. 2001).
Records in the office of the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reveal that
Mr. Travis has had three prior civil actions dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. See Travis v. Osceola Police Dept., et al., 3:02-CV-00005-BRW (E.D. Ark.);
Travis v. Russell, et al., 3:06-CV-00009-BRW (E.D. Ark.); and Travis v. Russell, et al., 3:06-CV-
00177-BRW (E.D. Ark.). Mr. Travis nonetheless may proceed in forma pauperis if he establishes
that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Ashley v.
Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998).
Mr. Travis sues alleging that a state error coram nobis proceeding was wrongly dismissed
by the Arkansas Supreme Court. (Doc. 2). Nothing in Mr. Travis’s complaint indicates that he
faces an imminent danger; therefore, that exception does not apply. Dilworth, 147 F.3d at 717.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Mr. Travis’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should he wish
to continue this case, Mr. Travis must submit the statutory filing and administrative fees of $405
to the Clerk of the Court, noting the above case style number, within thirty (30) days of the entry
date of this order, along with a motion to reopen the case. Upon receipt of the motion and full
payment, this case will be reopened.
2. It is CERTIFIED that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order or any judgment
entered hereunder would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of October, 2024.
q ED AY La JUDGE
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.