Dixon v. Hall et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; all pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 9/26/17. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

CEDRIC DIXON

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:17CV113-SA-RP

PELICIA HALL and
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff
Cedric Dixon, an inmate housed at the Mississippi State Penitentiary (“MSP”) at Parchman, has
filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against MSP Commissioner Pelicia Hall
and the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Having fully considered Dixon’s allegations and
the applicable law, the Court finds this complaint should be dismissed as duplicative.
Background Facts & History
One of Dixon’s fellow inmates, Lonnie Drain, initiated a § 1983 action on behalf of
Dixon and two other inmates. See Drain v. Hall, 4:17CV50-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss.). After a
review of Drain’s lawsuit, the Court ordered the Clerk to open individual civil actions for each
inmate named in Drain’s suit and directed each inmate to amend his complaints in his newlyfiled action. See id. at Doc. #12. On July 27, 2017, the instant action was opened on behalf of
Dixon using Drain’s initial complaint.
Dixon has now moved to amend his compliant to individualize his claims. Doc. #6.
Specifically, he claims that MSP has violated his constitutional rights by imposing a lockdown
because of the actions of other inmates. He claims that he is currently housed in small, two-man
cell for long periods of time because of the lockdown status and is denied adequate recreation,

yard time, and adequate time to properly bathe and practice hygiene. He asserts that the cells
themselves are unsanitary, that the facilities are in disrepair, and that there are rats and roaches
infesting the building.
Dixon also complains that MSP lacks adequate medical and dental care; that there is no
access to employment or education; that the diet for inmates is inadequately portioned and
balanced; that inmates are routinely denied copies of their grievances or personal identification
papers; that he has been inadequately targeted for old Rule Violation Reports; that he has been
denied court-ordered alcohol and drug treatment; and that he has been denied assistance with his
income taxes.
Screening Standards
Dixon’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”) . See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (subjecting prisoner complaint to preliminary screening
regardless of in forma pauperis status). Pursuant to the PLRA, the Court is obligated to evaluate
the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous or malicious,” if it “fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted,” or if it “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” § 1915(e)(2).
Discussion
Now that the Court has had the opportunity to review Dixon’s specific grievances, it
finds that the instant suit is unnecessary, as it is duplicative of Dixon’s complaints in a pending
lawsuit he previously filed in this Court: Dixon v. Hall, 4:17CV86-DMB-RP. In that action,
Dixon complains that he has been improperly charged with rule violations; that he lacks access
to alcohol and drug classes; that he is improperly on lockdown in unconstitutional conditions;
2

that there is an inadequate access to a balanced, adequate diet; that he is denied copies and
access to his personal identification records; that he is denied assistance with his taxes; and that
he is denied adequate clothing and living conditions. Therefore, it appears to the Court that
most, if not all, of Dixon’s complaints in this lawsuit have already been asserted in the
previously filed action. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed as duplicative. See Pittman v.
Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding court may dismiss a lawsuit as
“malicious” if the suit “duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the same
plaintiff”). If Dixon would like to clarify his claims by amending his complaints regarding
conditions at MSP, he should do so in Cause No. 4:17CV86-DMB-RP.

Conclusion
The instant action is duplicative of a previously filed action. Accordingly, this complaint
complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and all pending motions are DISMISSED AS
MOOT.1 A final judgment consistent with this Order will enter today.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Because the Court opened the action sua sponte, no penalty or additional fee will be imposed against
Dixon for filing a “malicious” suit.

3