GIANNOTTI v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 5/9/2017. (dmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GIANNOTTI,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action
No. 16-cv-09357 (JBS-AMD)

v.
CAMDEN COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

OPINION

Defendant.
APPEARANCES
Christopher Michael Giannotti, Plaintiff Pro Se
308 S. Warwick Road, Apt. A
Somerdale, NJ 08083
SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
Case 1
1.

By Complaint dated November 28, 2016 in Case No. 1:16-

cv-08776, Plaintiff Christopher Michael Giannotti sought to
bring a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) for allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint in Case
1:16-cv-08776 (“Case 1”), Docket Entry 1.
2.

Plaintiff has named CCCF as the sole defendant in his

complaint; however, the complaint itself is blank. Complaint §§
III-V. As such, the Court cannot discern what cause of action
Plaintiff intends to pursue against CCCF.

1

3.

Section 1915(e)(2) requires a court to review

complaints prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court must sua sponte dismiss
any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Case 1 was
subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff was proceeding in forma
pauperis.
4.

In accordance with these directives of the PLRA, this

Court undertook the requisite screening in Case 1 and, by Order
dated April 26, 2017, dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice for failure to state a claim (28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b)(ii)). Docket Entry 6 (“Dismissal Order”) in Case
1.
5.

As explained in this Court’s April 26, 2017, 2017

Opinion accompanying the Dismissal Order, Plaintiff’s Complaint
in Case 1 did not allege any facts to support a reasonable
inference that a constitutional violation had occurred in order
to survive this Court’s review under § 1915. Docket Entry 6
(“Dismissal Opinion”) in Case 1.
Case 2
6.

By Complaint dated December 19, 2016 in Case No. 1:16-

cv-09357, Plaintiff sought to bring another civil rights
2

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the CCCF for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Complaint
in Case 1:16-cv-09357 (“Case 2”), Docket Entry 1.
7.

Plaintiff again, submitted a blank complaint.

8.

Plaintiff’s Complaint in Case 2 is thus duplicative of

Plaintiff’s Complaint in Case 1.
9.

“‘As part of its general power to administer its

docket,’ a district court may dismiss a duplicative complaint.
Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)
(prohibiting a plaintiff from ‘maintaining two separate actions
involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same
court and against the same defendant’) . . . [T]he court must
insure that the plaintiff does not use the incorrect procedure
of filing duplicative complaints for the purpose of
circumventing the rules pertaining to amendment of complaints,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.” Fabics v. City of New Brunswick, 629 F.
App’x 196, 198 (3d Cir. 2015).
10.

Therefore, this matter is dismissed as duplicative of

16-08776.
11.

An appropriate order follows.

May 9, 2017
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
3