Muhammad v. Duffy et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER [DISMISSING CASE]: Plaintiff's 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted for the limited purpose of this Order. The Complaint is nearly identical to prior compl aints plaintiff filed against Wardens Edmund Duffy and Turhan Gumusdere, the former and current wardens of the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. Plaintiff's claims related to his property at Rikers Island remain pending in Muhammad v. New York City, No. 15-CV-3401. As no useful purpose would be served by the filing and litigation of this duplicate action, the instant complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the litigation pending under Docket Number 15-CV-3401. The cour t certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. SO ORDERED by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto, on 9/10/2015. C/mailed. (Forwarded for Judgment.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

FlLEO

IN Qlet(K'$ OFrlCE
u.a. c:u~lel' couiirr 1.0.N.'I'.

1'~KEJl- ~1f:tL:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

!ftOOt<LYN OF~E

----------------------------------------x
MR. PRINCE DIVINE MESSIAH MUHAMMAD,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM .AND ORDER

-against15-CV-2945 (KAM)
WARDEN EDMUND DUFFY and WARDEN
GUMUSDERE,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------x
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

The court received the above-captioned pro se
complaint from Mr. Prince Divine Messiah Muhammad 1 on August 31,
2015.

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant

to 28 U.S.C.
Order.

§

1915 is granted for the limited purpose of this

For the reasons that follow, the instant complaint is

dismissed as duplicative.
The Complaint is nearly identical to prior complaints
plaintiff filed against Wardens Edmund Duffy and Turhan
Gumusdere, the former and current wardens of the Anna M. Kross
Center on Rikers Island.
15-CV-165 (KAM)

See Muhammad v. New York State, No.

(dismissed after an amended complaint abandoned

the property claims); Muhammad v. New York City, No. 15-CV-3401
(KAM)

(property claims pending against Warden Gumusdere); and

1

Plaintiff has filed prior cases under the names Prince Muhammai,
M. Muhammad, and Richard McCray.

1

Prince D.

Muhammad v.

New York City,

No. 15-CV-4033 (JG)

(duplicate action

against the former and current wardens and the undersigned
dismissed) . 2
Like the previous complaints, the instant Complaint
alleges that plaintiff's personal property valued at $3,000 was
taken from him and was not returned, in violation of his
constitutional rights.

(Compl. at 4.)

The Complaint also

alleges that plaintiff was "'disrespected' and taken 'advantage'
of, an[d] being left 'naked' without my 'personal property.'"
(Id.)

Plaintiff seeks the return of the property or $100,000 in

damages.

(Compl. at 4-5.)
Plaintiff's claims related to his property at Rikers

Island remain pending in
3401.

Muhammad v.

New York City,

t~o.

15-CV-

As no useful purpose would be served by the filing and

litigation of this duplicate action, the instant comp:aint is
dismissed without prejudice to the litigation pending under
Docket Number 15-CV-3401.
F.3d 133, 138

See Curtis v.

(2d Cir. 2000)

Citibank, N.A.,

226

("As part of its general power to

2

Plaintiff filed other complaints related to his confinement anj treatment at
Kirby Psychiatric Center.
These cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
See Muhammad v. New
York City, No. 15-CV-2963 (filed 5/18/15 and transferred to the 3.D.N.Y. on
6/11/15); Muhammad v. New York City, No. 15-CV-3602 (filed 6/16/15 and
transferred to the S.D.N.Y. on 7/16/15); Muhammad v. Rabinowitz, No. 15-CV3683 (filed 6/22/15 and transferred to the S.D.N.Y. on 7/16/15), and Muhammad
v. New York State, No. 15-CV-3353 (filed 8/31/15 and transferred to the
S.D.N.Y. on 9/10/15).

2

administer its docket, a district court may stay or dismiss a
suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit.").
The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1915(a)

that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good
faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for
purpose of an appeal.
438,

444-45 (1962).

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully

directed to serve a copy of this Order on plaintiff and note
service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Dated: September 10, 2015
Brooklyn, New York

3