Donald v. Walmart

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. The defendant's Motion to Dismiss 7 is denied as moot. A separate judgment will be entered. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (MKR) Modified on 12/23/2016 to reflect copy mailed to pro se party. (MKR).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BRANDON DONALD,
Plaintiff,
vs.

8:16-CV-508
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WALMART,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on its own motion, and on the
defendant's motion to dismiss (filing 7). The Court declines to exercise its
jurisdiction over this case, and dismisses the case on its own motion.
In its motion to dismiss, the defendant called attention to the fact that
this case is functionally identical to another, earlier-filed case that the
plaintiff has pending against the defendant in this Court, No. 8:16-cv-201.
Filing 8 at 4; compare filing 1-1 with No. 8:16-cv-201 filing 1. But, as a
general policy, duplicative litigation in federal courts should be avoided.
Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 953
(8th Cir. 2001) (citing Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)). Plaintiffs may not pursue multiple federal
suits against the same party involving the same controversy at the same
time. Id. at 954. And federal courts may decline to exercise their jurisdiction
in order to prevent duplicative litigation. Id. at 952.
Specifically, "a district court may, for reasons of wise judicial
administration, dismiss one of two identical, pending actions." Id. at 953
(quotation omitted); see Parker v. Matthews, 71 F. App'x 613, 614 (8th Cir.
2003). A plaintiff has no right to maintain two separate actions involving the
same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same
defendant. See id. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this case should be
dismissed in favor of the earlier-filed case. Cf. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v.
Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 n.3 (8th Cir. 1999); cf. also Parker, 71
F. App'x at 614.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

2.

The defendant's motion to dismiss (filing 7) is denied as
moot.

3.

A separate judgment will be entered.

Dated this 23rd day of December, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

-2-