govinfo:USCOURTS-arwd-2_25-cv-02141-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 
FORT SMITH DIVISION 
 
ROBERT PHILPOTT PLAINTIFF 
 
v. Case No. 2:25-CV-02141-DCF 
 
SEBASTIAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et. al. DEFENDANTS 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
The Court has received a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) from 
Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford , and Plaintiff timely filed his O bjection (Doc. 
27). The matter is now ripe for consideration. 
After careful review, the Court concludes that the Report and 
Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in all respects 
and in its entirety as this Court’s findings. 
Plaintiff Robert Philpott, proceeding pro se, has failed to pay his filing fee 
after his in forma pauperis (IFP) status was revoked based on the “three strikes 
rule,” which states that a prisoner may not obtain IFP status when three of his 
previous actions were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a 
claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). While an exception exists for those in imminent 
danger of serious physical injury, Plaintiff has not shown that this exception 
applies in his case. As suc h, the Magistrate Judge has recommended this case 
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court agrees. PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 3, 2025, seeking relief under 42 
U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged sexual assault perpetrated against him by the 
Defendants while he was housed in an adult detention center in Sebastian County 
Jail when he was 15 years old in 1997. (Doc. 1). While he was granted IFP 
status that same day (Doc. 3), it was later determined that the three strikes rule 
applied, and his IFP status was revoked (Doc. 25). Plaintiff was ordered to pay 
the filing fee of $405.00 by February 19, 2026, which he did not do. Instead, on 
March 27, 2026, he filed his Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 
Recommendations (R and R) in this case. (Doc. 27). 
Plaintiff argues that his case should proceed despite his failure to pay the 
filing fee because the three strikes rule that caused his IFP status to be revoked 
is unconstitutional. (Doc. 27). A lternatively, Plaintiff requests his case be 
remanded for adjudication in state court. ( Id.). After careful consideration, the 
Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Objection should be, and hereby is, overruled. 
II. DISCUSSION 
A pro se litigant is not excused from complying with substantive and 
procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). Under Local 
Rule 5.5(c)(2), pro se litigants are expected to be familiar with and follow the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which warn that a case may be dismissed for PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case or for a failure to comply with court 
orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff essentially insists the Court allow this 
case to proceed on the merits despite his failure to obey the Court’s Order to pay 
the filing fee and, therefore, properly prosecute this matter. (Doc. 27). The 
Court declines to do so. 
Other than merely mentioning the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff provides 
no support for his argument that the three strikes rule and the Prison Litigation 
Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 9115(g) , are unconstitutional. “Section 
1915(g) applies only to civil actions, and indigent inmates are not denied IFP 
status for potentially nonfri volous civil claims unless and until they file three 
meritless suits.” Higgins v. Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797, 800 (8th Cir. 2001). The 
indigent inmate risk s “being denied IFP status for future nonfrivolous § 1983 
actions” when he chooses “to continue filing frivolous, malicious, and meritless 
suits after receiving notice of dismissals that would count as § 1915(g) strikes.” 
Id. Thus, it is the indigent inmate who controls whether the three strikes rule is 
applied t o him. Id. In addition, Section 1915 does not close the courthouse 
doors to frequent filers like Plaintiff because he can still file his suit by paying 
the full filing fee. See Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 716-17 (8th Cir. 1998) 
(per curium). He chose not to do so here. 
Because Plaintiff has already filed suit about this matter in state court, his PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
alternative request to remand this case to state court is moot. “Federal district 
courts have original jurisdiction over S ection 1983 claims, notwithstanding the 
fact that they share jurisdiction with the courts of the state in which they sit.” 
Williams v. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 1998). While this Court lacks 
discretion to remand a Section 1983 claim based solely on a plaintiff’s 
preference for state court , it does not bar a plaintiff from filing suit s in other 
courts. And Plaintiff appears to have done so here. (Doc. 27). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds proper the Report and 
Recommendation (Doc. 26) and overrules Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 27). As 
such, the Court ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the Report and 
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s case is 
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of May 2026. 
 
 /s/David Clay Fowlkes 
 DAVID CLAY FOWLKES 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight