Williams v. Beasley et al

Filing 4

ORDER directing the Clerk to close the duplicate case filed on September 29, 2020, CV 320-068. Plaintiff's claims shall proceed in the normal course of business, subject to the standard frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, in CV 320-065. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 11/16/2020. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
JAMARRIS LATUAN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACOB BEASLEY, Deputy Warden of
Security and JORDAN WICHER, Deputy
Warden of Security,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JACOB BEASLEY and JORDAN WICKER, )
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 320-068

JAMARRIS LATUAN WILLIAMS,

CV 320-057

ORDER
_________
On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff, an inmate at Telfair State Prison (“TSP”), submitted
to the Court for filing a complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams v.
Beasley, 3:20-CV-057, doc. no. 1 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 1, 2020). The Court granted Plaintiff’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and on September 29, 2020, Plaintiff returned
his Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement and Consent to Collection of Fees from Trust
Account. Id., doc. nos. 3-5. On that same day, Plaintiff submitted to the Court for filing

another complaint brought pursuant to § 1983. Williams v. Beasley, 3:20-CV-068, doc. no. 1
(S.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2020). Upon initial review of Plaintiff’s filings, it appeared Plaintiff filed
another complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 containing the same statement of
facts and basis for relief as his previously filed September 1, 2020 complaint. Compare
Williams v. Beasley, 3:20-CV-057, doc. no. 1, pp. 5-7 with Williams v. Beasley, 3:20-CV068, doc. no. 1, pp. 4-5. Indeed, in both complaints Plaintiff asserts his June 28, 2020
stabbing was a result of inadequate security measures at TSP. Compare Williams v. Beasley,
3:20-CV-057, doc. no. 1, pp. 5-7 with Williams v. Beasley, 3:20-CV-068, doc. no. 1, pp. 4-5.
As a result, in an Order dated October 1, 2020, the Court instructed Plaintiff to notify
the Court whether he intended to bring two separate cases and be responsible for two filing
fees. (See doc. no. 3.) The Court also instructed the Clerk to file the October 1st Order, and
any response from Plaintiff, in both cases captioned above. (Id. at 2.) The Court cautioned
Plaintiff that if he failed to respond to the October 1st Order within fourteen days, (1) the
Court would presume he intended to open only one case, (2) case number 3:20-CV-057, the
first case filed, would proceed in the normal course of business, and (3) case number 3:20CV-068 would be dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s Order directing
him to notify the Court whether he intended to bring two separate cases and be responsible
for two filing fees. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the CLERK to CLOSE the duplicate
case filed on September 29, 2020, CV 320-068. Plaintiff’s claims shall proceed in the
normal course of business, subject to the standard frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

2

in CV 320-065.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 2020, at
Augusta, Georgia.