□ Southern District of Texas 8 □□ ENTERED January 09, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS □ HOUSTON DIVISION |

ELVIS WAYNE JONES, (TDCI # 00536937), Plaintiff, □□ 3

VS. § | CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-4849 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, et al., 8 § Defendant. . MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Elvis Wayne J ones, (TDCJ #00536937), is a Texas state inmate currently held at the Willacy Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Proceeding pro se, he filed a lengthy and rambling complaint under

, which seems to allege that TDCJ officials, acting in concert with United States District Court judges, have unlawfully opened his mail, forged his electronic signature, and stolen economic stimulus funds that had been deposited into his inmate trust fund account. (Dkt.. 1). He also appears to allege that TDCI officials are illegally monitoring his activities on camera and have been planting drugs in TDCJ facilities. (/d. )- Jones has neither paid the applicable filing fee nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Jonés is incarcerated, 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 in forma pauperis. See Coleman vy. Tollefson,

(2015) (citing Jones v. Bock,

(2007)). Under the “three-strikes rule” established in the PLRA, a prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action if, while incarcerated, three or more of his civil actions or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, unless he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

(g); see also Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez,

(2020) (noting that the three-strikes rule was enacted to “help staunch a ‘flood of nonmeritorious’ prisoner litigation”) (quoting Jones,

). Court records reflect that since Jones has been incarcerated, he has filed no fewer than twenty actions and appeals, at least ten of which have been dismissed by the federal courts as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See, e.g., Jones v. West, et al., No. 1:96-CV-532 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 1997); Jones v. Beaumont Jud. Dist. Cts., et al., No. 1:98-CV-1473 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 1998); Jones v. West, et al., No. 1:97-CV-685 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 1999); Jones v. Dallas Jud. Dist. Cts., et al., No. 1:98-CV-1472 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 1999); Jones v. Allred Unit, No. 7:05-CV-84 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2005); Jones v. Hampton, et al., No. 7:05-CV-112 (N.D. Tex. June 23, 2005); Jones v. State of Texas, No. 7:08-CV-196 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2008); Jones v. City of Austin, No. 3:09-CV-77 (D. Alaska May 12, 2009); Jones v. Tex: Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 3:14-

CV-379 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2016); In re Jones, Appeal No. 19-10239 (Sth Cir. Apr. 5, 2019). Jones is therefore barred from proceeding with this civil action in forma pauperis unless the pleadings show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

(g); Bafios v. O’Guin,

(Sth Cir. 1998) (per curiam).

Jones is well aware of this restriction on his ability to file actions, as he has had at least nine actions dismissed as barred by the three-strikes rule. See, e.g., Jones

v. Tex. United States Dist. Ct. Judges, et al., No. 9:17-cv-183 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2018); Jones v. TDCJ Polunsky Unit Disciplinary Captains, et al., No. 9:18-CV-6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2018); Jones v. Overstreet, et al., No. 4:19-CV-2454 (S.D. Tex. July 15, 2019); Jones v. Polk Cnty. Dist. Cts., et al., No. 4:19-CV-3895 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019); Jones v. Polk Cnty. Dist. Ct., No. 9:19-CV-81 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2020); Jones v. TDCJ-ID Inspector Spy Contracts, et al., No. 9:20-CV-185 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2020); Jones v. TDCJ-ID Inspector’s Officers, No. 9:20-CV-186 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2020); TDCJ-ID Director Security Contracts, et al., No. 9:20-CV-187 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2020); Jones v. Tex. Prison Indus. Complexes, No. 9:21-CV-124 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2021). Nevertheless, Jones’s complaint contains no allegations that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, nor would the nature of his claims support such allegations. His complaint is therefore barred by the three- strikes rule.

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. This prisoner civil rights action filed by Elvis Wayne Jones is DISMISSED | without prejudice pursuant to

(@). 2. Any other pending riotions are DENIED as moot. 3. Jones may move to reinstate this case only if he pays the full amount of the

filing fee for a civil cn ($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: [email protected]. _ SIGNED at Houston, Texason__- yeu fF 2024.

_ DAVID HITTNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -