BOWE-CONNOR v. MCDONALD

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION dismissing case as duplicative of Civil Action No. 15-cv-0231. See attached document for details. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 02/25/2015. (lckbj1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________
)
SHELIA S. BOWE-CONNOR,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT A. MCDONALD, Secretary
)
of Veterans Affairs,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
_________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 15-cv-0269 (KBJ)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 24, 2015, pro se plaintiff Sheila S. Bowe-Connor (“Plaintiff”) filed
the instant complaint against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in which she alleges that
she was wrongfully terminated from her position at the Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Center. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a nearly identical complaint six
days before—both complaints recite the same allegations using the same language, seek
the same relief, and name the same defendant; the only difference between the two is the
deletion of a few words. (Compare Compl., with Bowe-Connor v. McDonald, No. 15-cv0231, Compl., ECF No. 1 (Feb. 18, 2015).)
Where a plaintiff brings duplicative claims against the same defendant, rather
than allowing both cases to proceed or consolidating the two cases, “[t]he better course
. . . is to dismiss the claims” in the new case as duplicative of the already-pending
claims. See McMillian v. District of Columbia, No. 05-2127, 2006 WL 6927884, at *1
(D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2006); see also Phelps v. Stomber, 883 F. Supp. 2d 188, 232-33
(D.D.C. 2012) (“[P]laintiffs may not file duplicative complaints in order to expand their

legal rights.” (emphasis in original) (quoting Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 140
(2d Cir. 2000))). “Plaintiffs generally ‘have no right to maintain two separate actions
involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the
same defendants.” Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, No. 09-0699, 2009 WL 1033269, at
*1 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2009) (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.
1977)). This bar against duplicative pleadings applies to all plaintiffs, whether they are
represented by counsel or proceeding pro se. See, e.g., Phelps, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 233
(dismissing as duplicative claims of plaintiff represented by counsel); Sturdza, 2009 WL
1033269, at *1 (dismissing pro se plaintiff’s claims as duplicative of, and redundant to,
pending actions).
The instant claims are entirely duplicative of those that Plaintiff asserts in case
number 15-cv-0231. Therefore, as set forth in the order accompanying this opinion, the
instant case is DISMISSED. See Sturdza, 2009 WL 1033269, at *1 (“In consideration
of ‘wise judicial administration,’ a district court may use its inherent powers to dismiss a
suit that is duplicative of another suit in federal court.” (quoting Colorado River Water
Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976))).

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Date: February 25, 2015

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge

2