Atkins v. Enge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION JOHN LOUIS ATKINS, #02184778, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-413-JDK-KNM § JAMADRE L. ENGE, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff John Louis Atkins, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) inmate proceeding pro se and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. On October 24, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report (Docket No. 3) finding that Plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) for repeatedly filing lawsuits that are frivolous and do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted and, thus, may not proceed in this action without full prepayment of the filing fee unless he establishes that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Docket No. 3. Judge Mitchell recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismiss this case with prejudice as to the refiling of another in forma pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims but without prejudice to the refiling of this lawsuit upon payment of the full $405.00 filing fee. Id. A copy of the Report was sent to Plaintiff, and he filed timely objections. Docket Nos. 5, 7. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff objects that he did not accumulate three strikes. But he is incorrect. Plaintiff has had three or more previous lawsuits dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Atkins v. Sweetwater Co. Sheriff’s Office, et al., No. 2:11-cv-194-ABJ (Wyo. Aug. 15, 2011) (dismissing with prejudice for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Atkins v. Bales, No. 6:20-cv-300 (E.D. Tex. May 14, 2021) (similarly dismissing for the failure to state a claim); Atkins v. Bales, No. 21-40542 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022) (dismissing appeal as frivolous and highlighting that dismissal constitutes a strike). While Plaintiff correctly points out that one of the cases cited in the Report, Atkins v. Propst, No. 1:19-cv-0166-C (N.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2020), should not have counted as a strike, it is of no consequence because Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes anyways. Thus, Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report is correct, and Plaintiff's objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections (Docket Nos. 5, 7). The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 3) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket. No. 2)is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for the purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis, but without prejudice to the refiling of this lawsuit upon payment of the full $405.00 filing fee. If Plaintiff pays the full filing fee within 15 days of the date of this Order, the lawsuit will proceed as though the full filing fee had been paid. All other motions which may be pending are DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of January, 2026. JHREMYJD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE