TAYLOR v. WRIGHT et al
ORDER denying as moot 10 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Dismissing case and directing issuance of final judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/18/2015 (dist made) (CBU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CHARLES MACK TAYLOR,
KEITH BUTTS Superintendent,
Entry Dismissing Case and Directing Issuance of Final Judgment
On June 18, 2015, the Court directed Plaintiff Charles Mack Taylor to show cause as to
why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of Taylor v. Butts, No. 1:15-cv-00874-TWPTAB. Mr. Taylor has responded to the Court’s show cause order. In his response, Mr. Taylor
asserts that this case should not be dismissed because the defendants violated his constitutional
rights by assaulting him in his cell.
A lawsuit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly
differ between the two actions.” Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993).
“A district court has an ample degree of discretion in deferring to another federal proceeding
involving the same parties and issues to avoid duplicative litigation.” Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am.
Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir. 1995); see Rizzo v. City of Wheaton, Ill., 462
Fed. Appx. 609, 613 (7th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have ample discretion to dismiss duplicative
litigation. . . .”). Mr. Taylor contends that the defendants in this case have violated his
constitutional rights, but he has not explained why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative
of the claims that have been raised in Taylor v. Butts, No. 1:15-cv-00874-TWP-TAB. In that case
he alleges that the defendants—several of whom are also defendants in this case—sexually
assaulted him in his cell in December 2014 through January 2015. His allegations in this case are
essentially the same. Therefore, because the “claims, parties, and available relief do not
significantly differ between the two actions,” Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223, this action is dismissed without
prejudice as duplicative. The Court again reminds Mr. Taylor that if he desires to sue defendants
named in this case that are not named in Taylor v. Butts, No. 1:15-cv-00874-TWP-TAB, he may
file a motion to amend his complaint in No. 1:15-cv-00874-TWP-TAB to add those persons as
Given the foregoing, Mr. Taylor’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt 10]
is denied as moot. Judgment consistent with this entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHARLES MACK TAYLOR
NEW CASTLE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT
P.O. Box A
New Castle, IN 47362
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?