Washington v. Gonzales et al
| David Lee Washington |
| Adam Gonzales, Joe Tovar, Brandy Leslie, FNU 6:22-CV-060 Dunlap and Mental Health Manager |
| 6:2022cv00060 |
| November 22, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| James Wesley Hendrix |
| Prisoner Pet/Other: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
JUDGMENT: For the reasons stated in the Court's order entered today, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Plaintiffs civil-rights complaint is dismissed with prejudice as duplicative under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b). (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 12/13/2022) (dsr)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER: For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs complaint is duplicative of several other complaints. Thus, it is dismissed as malicious. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b). Additionally, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), and he failed to show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. This complaint likely crossed in the mail with the Court's recent sanction order, so the Court finds that no additional sanction is warranted at this time. However, the Court finds that enough time has passed now for Plaintiff to have received notice of the monetary sanction imposed on November 22, 2022. If Plaintiff persists in filing frivolous or malicious complaints in this Court, or in any court removable or transferrable to this Court, he will be subjected to increasingly severe sanctions. The Court therefore orders: 1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice as malicious under 28 U.S.C. 191SA(b). Alternatively, the complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 191S(g). 2.All pending motions are denied. 3. If Plaintiff appeals this order, he must pay the appeal fee of$505.00. He will not be permitted to proceed informa pauperis on appeal. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 12/13/2022) (dsr)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No: 5, 6. mailed to Plaintiff. Tue Dec 13 12:34:12 CST 2022 (crt) |
| Filing 4 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party (dsr) |
| Filing 3 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge. Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (dsr) (Main Document 3 replaced on 11/22/2022) (dsr). |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis with certificate of trust account filed by David Lee Washington. (dsr) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by David Lee Washington. Filing fee was not paid. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cov ltr & env) (dsr) (Main Document 1 replaced to include case number on first page on 11/22/2022) (dsr). |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No: 3, 4. mailed to Plaintiff at TDCJ McConnell Unit, Kenedy, Texas. Tue Nov 22 17:15:15 CST 2022 (crt) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
