Purchase v. Shawnee Community College

Filing 12

ORDER: The instant matter DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 11/12/13. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KENT PURCHASE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHAWNEE COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 12-740-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court sua sponte for the purpose of docket control. Court
records show that Plaintiff, Kent Purchase, has filed two virtually identical lawsuits in the
Southern District of Illinois. The first case, Case No. 12-266-WDS, was filed on March 27, 2012
and assigned to Judge William D. Stiehl. Plaintiff filed suit against Shawnee Community College
for injunctive relief and damages claiming that he was wrongfully terminated from his job as a
maintenance facilitator because of his race and because he filed a worker’s compensation claim.
The instant matter was then filed on June 26, 2012 and assigned to the undersigned Judge.
Plaintiff makes the same claims against the same Defendant, and seeks the same relief as in the
first case. In fact, Plaintiff even filed the same amended complaint on the same day in both cases.
Compare Case No. 12-740-GPM (Doc. 4) with Case No. 12-226-WDS (Doc. 9).
“As a general rule, a federal suit may be dismissed for reasons of wise judicial
administration whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in [federal court].”
Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted).
Page 1 of 2

“Dismissal is appropriate where . . . the same party has filed both suits, and the claims and
available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Wallis v. Fifth Third Bank,
443 F. App'x 202, 205 (7th Cir. 2011), citing Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223. When duplicative claims are
pending in multiple federal forums, the later filed actions generally give way to the first
filed. Warshawsky & Co. v. Arcata Nat. Corp., 552 F.2d 1257, 1265 (7th Cir. 1977).
It is clear that the instant matter is duplicative of Case No. 12-266-WDS. Furthermore,
Case No. 12-226-WDS was filed first, and litigation is much further along than in the instant
matter.

In the first case, Defendant has been served and has entered its appearance; the Court has

entertained and denied a motion to dismiss; a scheduling order was entered, and discovery and
dispositive motions are due next month. In the instant matter, Defendant has yet to even be
served. Therefore, the instant matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to close this case on the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 12, 2013
s/ G. Patrick Murphy
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2