Ronald McClary v. Joseph Lightsey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03052-BO Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000008060]. Mailed to: Ronald McClary. [16-7332]

Appeal: 16-7332

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/23/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7332

RONALD MCCLARY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH LIGHTSEY,
Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:16-ct-03052-BO)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

MOTZ

and

January 23, 2017

TRAXLER,

Circuit

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7332

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/23/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ronald
judgment

McClary

dismissing

appeals
his

a

civil

district
rights

court’s

complaint

order

as

and

frivolous,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2012), for being duplicative of
a pending action.

For the reasons set forth below, we vacate

the court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
In quick succession, McClary filed three lawsuits against
medical

personnel

at

the

Polk

Correctional

Institution.

On

December 16, 2014, the district court consolidated the three
lawsuits.

On February 8, 2016, the district court dismissed

McClary’s first lawsuit without prejudice, McClary v. Lightsey,
No.

5:14-ct-03039-FL,

because

administrative remedies.

he

failed

to

exhaust

his

The remaining two lawsuits are still

active.
On February 22, 2016, McClary filed the instant complaint
in which he stated that he was “refiling” his complaint in No.
5:14-ct-03039-FL
remedies.
dismissed

because

(Electronic
the

complaint

he

exhausted

Record

at

with

7).

prejudice,

his
The

administrative
district

finding

court

that

the

complaint was duplicative of one of the pending consolidated
complaints.

The court noted that the dismissal counted as a

strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012).
A district court shall dismiss an action at any time if it
determines that the action is frivolous or malicious.
2

See 28

Appeal: 16-7332

Doc: 11

U.S.C.

§

Filed: 01/23/2017

1915(e)(2)(B).

Pg: 3 of 3

Because

district

courts

are

not

required to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits, they
may

dismiss

§ 1915(e).
1992)

them

a

frivolous

or

malicious

pursuant

to

See Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158, 1158 (8th Cir.

(finding

allowed

as

that

§

district

1915(d),

court

to

the

precursor

dismiss

a

to

§

complaint

1915(e),
that

was

duplicative of another pending action brought by same party).
Generally, lawsuits are duplicative if the parties, issues, and
available

relief

are

not

different

from

each

other.

See

Georgia v. McCarthy, 833 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2016).
Here, the district court mistakenly found that McClary’s
complaint

was

duplicative

of

a

pending

action.

The

court’s

confusion is excusable, given that McClary has filed a number of
lawsuits with overlapping and related claims.
was

attempting

exhausted
order.

his

to

refile

a

complaint

administrative

remedies,

to
we

show

that

vacate

the

he

had

court’s

We take no position on the merits of McClary’s claims.

Accordingly,

we

vacate

the

district

court’s

judgment and remand for further proceedings.
oral

Because McClary

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

order

and

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3