GATSON v. O'CONNOR et al

Filing 2

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Brian R. Martinotti on 5/22/2017. (km)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_______________________________________
MALCOLM GATSON,
Civil Action No. 17-2712-BRM-TJB
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION

A.O., 1 et al.,
Defendants.

MARTINOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE
Before this Court is Plaintiff Malcom Gatson’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint (the “Third
Complaint”) (ECF No. 1), raising claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth
below, this Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to refile the Third Complaint (ECF No. 1) as a
supplement to the complaint filed in Docket Number 17-2014 (the “Original Complaint”) (Docket
No. 17-2014 at ECF No. 1) and DISMISS this docket as duplicative of that matter.
On or about March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Original Complaint raising claims pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Docket No. 17-2014 at ECF No. 1.) Specifically, he alleges a woman
identified as A.O. falsely accused him of rape and robbery and that prosecutors and police withheld
evidence from him in his ongoing criminal matter in the state courts. (Id. at 4-7.) Plaintiff also
sought to proceed in forma pauperis in that matter. (See Docket No. 17-2014 at ECF NO. 1-2.) On
March 31, 2017, this Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis without

1

In his Original Complaint (see Docket No. 17-2014 at ECF No. 1), Plaintiff names as a defendant
a woman he claims has accused him of rape (id. at 1 n.1), and the Court refers to her by her initials
due to the sensitive nature of the facts at issue in the complaint. See, e.g., Florida Star v. B.J.F.,
491 U.S. 524, 527 n. 2 (1989).
1

prejudice, and administratively terminated Plaintiff’s Original Complaint until Plaintiff either paid
the filing fee or refiled his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.)
On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed two new similar but separate complaints with two new
docket numbers (a second complaint (the “Second Complaint”) (Docket No. 17-2710 at ECF No.
1) and the Third Complaint currently before the Court) asserting nearly identical claims to the
Original Complaint and two applications to proceed in forma pauperis. 2 The Third Complaint
raises 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and alleges A.O. filed false police reports accusing him of robbery
and rape and that police detectives failed to turn over evidence to him in his criminal case in the
state courts. (ECF No. 1.) The claims raised in Plaintiff’s Third Complaint allege the same conduct
addressed in his Original Complaint, but elaborate upon some claims and omit some facts on
claims previously asserted. Because Plaintiff’s Third Complaint raises claims similar to his
Original Complaint, but provides additional facts, Plaintiff’s Third Complaint is duplicative of his
Original Complaint and therefore the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to refile Plaintiff’s Third
Complaint as a supplement to his Original Complaint under his original docket number and dismiss
this docket as duplicative of that matter. See e.g., Fabics v. City of New Brunswick, 629 F. App’x
196, 198 (3d Cir. 2015) (noting that district courts faced with a duplicative complaint can “stay
the second action, consolidate it with the first, or dismiss the second complaint without
prejudice”). 3 An appropriate Order will follow.
Date: May 22, 2017

/s/Brian R. Martinotti
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

The Court is simultaneously issuing a separate opinion and order addressing the Second
Complaint on Docket No. 17-2710.

3

Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. (ECF No. 1-1.) This Court will
address Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application in a separate opinion after the Third Complaint
is refiled as a supplement to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint under Docket Number 17-2014.
2