IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

§ SECIAL HEATH, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-355-JDK-KNM § DAN DAWSON, et al., § § Defendants. § §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Secial Heath, a former Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to

. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. Plaintiff sues individuals identified as Dan Dawson and Brad Dorsey of Atlanta, Texas. His claim against them reads, in its entirety, “they stole my money.” Docket No. 1 at 4. On December 3, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Docket No. 5. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Plaintiff be warned of the possibility of sanctions.

. Plaintiff filed objections reading, in their entirety, as follows: I’m writing to inform you of the things happening in all of my cases. They are trying to send all of my cases over to Marshall, Texas and they are the ones who tried to throw all of them out. I object to everything that you say about my lawsuits being dismissed. Because of my lawsuit being a whole lot of wrong stuff in it. Right now I would like to get all of my cases sent to me. Docket No. 7. Plaintiff has filed over fifty lawsuits in the district courts of the State of Texas, including multiple cases which were filed in the wrong venue and transferred. A substantial number of these cases—like the present one—contain no discernible statement of a claim, but simply offer a conclusory allegation without any semblance

of factual support. See, e.g., Heath v. Jeff, et al., civil action no. 5:22-cv-57 (E.D.Tex., January 24, 2024, appeal dismissed); Heath v. Wilson, et al., civil action no. 5:22-cv- 60 (E.D.Tex., January 24, 2024, appeal dismissed); Heath v. Gowan, et al., civil action no. 2:22-cv-60 (E.D.Tex., June 10, 2024). Plaintiff thus has ample notice that such pleadings are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In addition, court records show that Plaintiff has filed at least three lawsuits which have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. See, e.g., Heath v. Standerly, No. 4:23-1844 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 27, 2023) (dismissing for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Heath v. Parole, No. 4:23-939 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2023) (dismissing for failure to state a claim); Heath v. Germbino, No. 4:23-163 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2023) (dismissing as frivolous and delusional). Consequently, Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis absent a showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury relating to

the claims in the complaint.

(g); Baños v. O’Guin,

(5th Cir. 1998). This imminent danger must relate to the allegations of the complaint. Judd v. Federal Elections Commission, 311 F.App’x 730, 731 (5th Cir. 2009). Because Plaintiff did not pay the full filing fee or show imminent danger of serious physical injury, his lawsuit may be dismissed on this basis as well. The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the

Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See

(b)(1) (District Judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made”). Upon such de novo review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. It is accordingly ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the

Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 5) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for failure to pay the filing fee or to show imminent danger of serious physical injury. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is

REVOKED. Finally, Plaintiff Secial Heath is hereby WARNED and placed on notice that further abuse of the judicial process could lead to the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to the assessment of monetary sanctions, bars from filing new lawsuits until such sanctions are satisfied, or a requirement that any further lawsuits must be signed by an attorney in good standing with the State Bar of Texas and licensed to practice in the Eastern District of Texas. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8rd_ day of February, 2025. G5, LHe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE