MERCADO v. COULUMBUS POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 6

Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Plaintiff Angelito C. Mercado's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, [dkt 2 ], is denied without prejudice because he failed to submit a certified copy of his trust fund accou nt statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint on March 29, 2017, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Mercado shall have through April 20, 2017, in which to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or renew his request for in forma pauperis status with the required information. Failure to do so may subject the case to dismissal for failure to comply with Court orders. There is no reason for duplicative lawsuits which drain scarce judicial resources. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice. Because this complaint is being dismissed as duplicative, Mercado's motion to retain video surveillance, [dkt. 4 ], is denied. Mercado shall have through April 20, 2017, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/4/2017. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ANGELITO C. MERCADO,

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:17-cv-0972-TWP-MJD
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
COLUMBUS POLIC DEPARTMENT,
MAYOR LEINHOOP, OFFICER
FRANK DICKMAN,
Defendants.

Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I. In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff Angelito C. Mercado’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, [dkt 2], is denied
without prejudice because he failed to submit a certified copy of his trust fund account statement
(or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of his
complaint on March 29, 2017, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Mercado shall have through
April 20, 2017, in which to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or renew his request for in forma
pauperis status with the required information. Failure to do so may subject the case to dismissal
for failure to comply with Court orders.
II.
Mercado alleges that on April 2, 2016, Officer Frank Dickman of the Columbus Police
Department approached him and placed him in handcuffs. Two other officers intervened and made
Officer Dickman release Mercado. His claim is construed as one of seizure or arrest without
probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), a pre-trial detainee
at the Bartholomew County Jail, the complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b). Pursuant to this statute, “[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a
claim if the allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock,
127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint “must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. . . . A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations omitted). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff,
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
III.
This claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
allegations set forth in the complaint are duplicative to the allegations set forth in Mercado v.
Leinhoop, Frank Dickman, 1:17-cv-974-LJM-MJD.
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)
(quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors v. Joseph E. Seagram, 572 F. Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill.
1983) (citations omitted)). That is the case here. This civil action is identical in all material respects
to Mercado v. Leinhoop, Frank Dickman, 1:17-cv-974-LJM-MJD, also filed on March 29, 2017.
The complaint submitted in this action is strikingly similar to the complaint in 1:17-cv-974-LJMMJD. There is no reason for duplicative lawsuits which drain scarce judicial resources.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice. See Rizzo v. City of Wheaton, Ill., 462
Fed. Appx. 609, 613, 2011 WL 5903823, 3 (7th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have ample discretion
to dismiss duplicative litigation. . . .”); Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d

624, 629 (7th Cir.1995)(“Federal district courts have the inherent power to administer their dockets
so as to conserve scarce judicial resources.”).
Because this complaint is being dismissed as duplicative, Mercado’s motion to retain video
surveillance, [dkt. 4], is denied.
Mercado shall have through April 20, 2017, in which to show cause why Judgment
consistent with this Entry should not issue. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014,
1022 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Without at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show
cause, an IFP applicant’s case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely
notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.”)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 4/4/2017

Distribution:
ANGELITO C. MERCADO
Bartholomew County Jail
543 2nd Street
Columbus, IN 47201