EL v. KOOB et al

Filing 18

ORDER Granting 5 Motion to Dismiss ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 3/31/2021. (rtm, )

Case 1:20-cv-02549-RMB-KMW Document 18 Filed 03/31/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 130

[Docket No. 5]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
MARK EL, d/b/a MARK SMITH,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 20-2549 (RMB/KMW)
v.
SGT. ROBERT KOOB, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Defendants.

RENÉE MARIE BUMB, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss
pro se Plaintiff Mark El’s Complaint, brought by Defendants Marylou
McAdams Corson and Donald J. Lombardo (the “County Defendants”),
[Docket No. 5], and joined by Defendants Robert Koob, Sean Donahue,
and the City of Ocean City (the “City Defendants”), [Docket No.
9].

For

the

reasons

expressed

below,

the

Court

will

grant

Defendants’ Motion.
The allegations made by Plaintiff in his Complaint in this
case are copied verbatim from his initial Complaint in a separate
case. [Compare Docket No. 1-4, with El v. Koob, Case No. 19-17577,
Docket No. 1.] “‘As part of its general power to administer its
docket,’ a district court may dismiss a duplicative complaint.”
Fabics v. City of New Brunswick, 629 F. App’x 196, 198 (3d Cir.
2015) (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United

Case 1:20-cv-02549-RMB-KMW Document 18 Filed 03/31/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 131

States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)). The Third Circuit has explicitly
held that a plaintiff may not “maintain two separate actions
involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same
court and against the same defendant.” Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563
F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc).
It cannot be disputed here that that is precisely what is
happening: Plaintiff filed a Complaint in a separate case before
this Court on September 3, 2019, that is almost exactly the same
as the Complaint filed in this case. In the earlier case, this
Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, at which point
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that was subject to this
Court’s screening. [See El v. Koob, Case No. 19-17577, Docket Nos.
2-4.] Nevertheless, Plaintiff then filed the Complaint in the
present case on December 23, 2019, in New Jersey state court.
[Docket No. 1-4.] Defendants removed the case to this Court on
March 9, 2020. [Docket No. 1.] As a result, Plaintiff presently
has “two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the
same time in the same court and against the same defendant[s].”
See Walton, 563 F.2d at 70. Plaintiff is precluded from maintaining
both suits under Third Circuit precedent.
Therefore, IT IS this

31st

day of

March

2021, hereby:

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 5] is
GRANTED; and it is further

2

Case 1:20-cv-02549-RMB-KMW Document 18 Filed 03/31/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 132

ORDERED

that

Plaintiff’s

Complaint

[Docket

No.

DISMISSED.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

3

1-4]

be