Mengel v. King

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PETER JOHN MENGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-12440
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

JAMES KING,
Defendant.
____________________________/

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE
This matter recently came before the Court on plaintiff Peter John Mengel’s pro se
civil rights complaint and application to proceed without prepaying the fees or costs for
this action. Plaintiff is a state prisoner at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility in
St. Louis, Michigan where defendant James King is a teacher. Plaintiff alleges in his
complaint that, on or about March 9, 2017, Defendant made a sexually abusive comment
to him.
Approximately six weeks before the Court received Plaintiff’s complaint, he filed
an identical complaint that was assigned to United States District Judge John Corbett
O’Meara. See Mengel v. King, No. 17-cv-11855 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2017). “The filing
of multiple federal actions arising out of the same facts is strongly discouraged, and
plaintiffs take such a course at the peril that the adjudication of one case will have
preclusive effect on the other.” Twaddle v. Diem, 200 F. App’x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2006).
Lawsuits are duplicative if they “involve ‘nearly identical parties and issues.’ ” Baatz v.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 814 F.3d 785, 789 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Certified
Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, LLC v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 551 (6th Cir.
2007) (quoting Zide Sport Shop of Ohio v. Ed Tobergte Assoc., Inc.,16 F. App’x 433, 437
(6th Cir. 2001)). When faced with a duplicative suit, a federal court may exercise its
discretion to dismiss the suit before it. Twaddle, 200 F. App’x at 438.
“[S]imple dismissal of the second suit is [a] common disposition because
plaintiffs have no right to maintain two actions on the same subject in the
same court, against the same defendant at the same time.” Curtis v.
Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138–39 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Missouri v.
Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 953–54 (8th Cir.2001)
(joining other courts that have held a district court may dismiss one of two
identical pending actions).
Id.
The complaint in this case is identical to the one Plaintiff previously filed. The
Court, therefore, summarily DISMISSES this case as duplicative of the case currently
pending before Judge O’Meara in case number 17-cv-11855.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 7, 2017

2