PIERSON v. DRADA et al
Filing
5
ORDER - This action is DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative. All pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to change the spelling of the plaintiff's name on the docket to "Peirson." Final judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue (See Order). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 6/3/2020 (Copy mailed per distribution list).(TMC)
Case 2:20-cv-00277-JPH-DLP Document 5 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
RUBEN REUAD PIERSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DRADA, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:20-cv-00277-JPH-DLP
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
The complaint Ruben Peirson has filed in this action is identical to his complaint in another
action proceeding in this Court. Compare dkt. 1 to Peirson v. Drada et al., no. 2:20-cv-00231JMS-MJD, dkt. 1 (Apr. 30, 2020).
"[A] district court may dismiss a complaint if it duplicates another federal case, such as
when the 'claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.'"
Northern v. Stroger, 676 F. App'x 607, 608 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch
& Co, Inc., 694 F.3d 873, 888–89 (7th Cir. 2012)).
The claims, parties, and available relief in these two actions do not differ at all. Therefore,
this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative.
All pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to change the spelling of
the plaintiff's name on the docket to "Peirson."
Final judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 6/3/2020
Case 2:20-cv-00277-JPH-DLP Document 5 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 18
Distribution:
RUBEN REUAD PEIRSON, JR.
228093
WABASH VALLEY - CF
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
CARLISLE, IN 47838
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?