govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00978-1

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
CHRISTOPHER J. BARNETT, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-978-J 
 ) 
FNU FRECH, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Defendants. ) 
 
ORDER 
 
Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks leave to 
proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 3]. The matter was referred for initial proceedings to United 
States Magistrate Judge Chris Step hens consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). On May 
13, 2026, Judge Stephens issued a Report and R ecommendation (R&R) recommending denial of 
Plaintiff’s application and dismis sal of this action without prej udice unless Plaintiff pays the 
$405.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one days from the date of any order adopting the 
R&R [Doc. No. 7]. Plaintiff objected (Obj.) [Doc. No. 9], triggering de novo review. 
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Plaintiff filed two applications for leave to proceed 
in forma pauperis. Construing his filings libera lly, the Court DENIES the first application [Doc. 
No. 2] as MOOT and considers the merits of Plaintiff’s second application [Doc. No. 3]. 
Turning to the merits, Plaint iff has accumulated three strike s from prior federal civil 
lawsuits. R&R at 2. Accordingly, he may pr oceed without prepayment of fees only if he 
sufficiently pleads “specific, credible allegati ons of imminent danger of serious physical harm” 
and those allegations are assessed “at the time he filed his complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Hafed 
v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1179 (10th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by 
Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534 (2015). In addition, there must be “a nexus between the 

2 
imminent danger he alleges and the legal claims asserted.” Boles v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 794 F. 
App’x 767, 770 (10th Cir. 2019) (cit ation modified). Against this backdrop, Judge Stephens 
concludes Plaintiff failed to establish the required nexus because his claims concern allegations of 
past misconduct and conditions of confinement at James Crabtree Correctional Center, but he has 
since been transferred to another facility. R&R at 3–5. Therefore, a favorable judicial outcome 
would not redress any injury Plaintiff has alleged. Id. 
In his objection, Plaintiff argue s that his transfer does not el iminate the threat because he 
remains in the custody of the Oklahoma Depa rtment of Corrections (ODOC) and could be 
subjected to the same conduct at any ODOC facility, including if he is transferred back to James 
Crabtree Correctional Center. Obj. at 1–2. Th ese arguments are unpers uasive. Plaintiff’s 
allegations concern harm allegedly threatened at James Crabtree Correctional Center, where he 
was housed when he filed his Complaint. [Doc. No. 1]. Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated 
there, he has not established the requisite ne xus between the imminent danger alleged and the 
claims asserted in this action. See Boles, 794 F. App’x at 770; Davis v. Louthan, No. CIV-25-502-
PRW, 2025 WL 1921780, at *4 (W.D. Okla. May 30, 2025) (R&R), adopted, 2025 WL 1921265 
(W.D. Okla. July 11, 2025). Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff’s allegations concern past harm or 
speculative future injury, that does not establish imm inent danger under § 1915(g). See Davis, 
2025 WL 1921780, at *4; Barrett v. Workman, 486 F. App’x 706, 708 (10th Cir. 2012). 
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7], DENIES 
Plaintiff’s first application to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2] as MOOT, DENIES 
Plaintiff’s second application to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 3], and ORDERS Plaintiff 
to pay the $405.00 filing fee within twenty-one days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is advised 

3 
that if he does not pay the full $405.00 filing fee within twenty-one days of the date of this Order, 
this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight