Michael Titus v. Tina Reynolds, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION MICHAEL TITUS PLAINTIFF ADC #168523 v. Case No. 4:25-cv-01246-LPR TINA REYNOLDS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Michael Titus, an inmate at the Omega Center of the Arkansas Division of Correction, filed this pro se action on November 28, 2025.1 Mr. Titus did not pay the $405 filing fee, instead seeking to proceed with his case in forma pauperis.2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that a prisoner cannot proceed in forma pauperis “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.”3 Prior to filing this lawsuit on November 28, 2025, Mr. Titus filed at least three actions that were dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.4 A plaintiff with “three strikes” may proceed in forma pauperis only if he falls under the “imminent danger” exception to the three strikes rule.5 For Mr. Titus to be able to proceed in See Compl. (Doc. 2). Mr. Titus filed an Amended Complaint on December 1, 2025. See Doc. 4.

2 Mot. for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1).

3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

4 See Titus v. Scarface, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00235-JM (E.D. Ark. dismissed Mar. 25, 2024); Titus v. World Book, et al., No. 6:24-cv-06039-SOH (W.D. Ark. dismissed June 4, 2024); and Titus v. Harris, et al., No. 6:24-cv-06044-SOH (W.D. Ark. dismissed June 6, 2024).

5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (providing that three-strikers should be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis if they are “under imminent danger of serious physical injury”); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998) forma pauperis in this case, he must establish that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint.® Mr. Titus’s pleadings do not indicate he was in imminent danger at the time he filed his Complaint (or his Amended Complaint). Accordingly, the imminent danger exception does not apply. This case will therefore be dismissed due to Mr. Titus’s failure to pay the filing fee. Mr. Titus will have thirty (30) days to reopen this case by paying the $405 filing fee in full.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Mr. Titus’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

2. Mr. Titus’s Complaint and Amended Complaint (Docs. 2 & 4) are DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. Mr. Titus has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order in which to reopen this case by paying the $405 filing fee in full.

4. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 16th day of January 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE (explaining that the exception applies only if the prisoner is in imminent danger “at the time of filing” and that “[a]llegations that the prisoner has faced imminent danger in the past are insufficient”).

6 See Ashley, 147 F.3d at 717.