Johnson v. Hinds

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 12/10/18. This document serviced via US Mail to Shaun Johnson.(KFB, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
SHAUN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMANDA HINDS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-468
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed July 8, 2016 [Doc. 1
p. 6]. Now before the Court is Defendant Hinds’s motion to dismiss this matter as duplicative of
Plaintiff’s other pending lawsuit against her [Doc. 15]. For the reasons set forth below, this
motion [Id.] will be GRANTED and this action will be DISMISSED.
In accordance with the Court’s order [Doc. 5], Plaintiff filed an amended complaint [Doc.
6] which is the operative complaint in this matter [Doc. 5 p. 3]. Plaintiff’s amended complaint
[Doc. 6], however, contains the same allegations and claims as those set forth in his operative
amended complaint in his other pending lawsuit against Defendant Hinds in this district, filed
November 20, 2015. See Johnson v. Hinds, No. 2:16-CV-45 [Doc. 1 p. 11; Doc. 22]. While the
amended complaints are not completely identical, as Plaintiff sets forth his factual allegations
and claims in different orders in the two amended complaints, the substance thereof is identical.
Compare [Doc. 6] with Johnson v. Hinds, No. 2:16-CV-45 [Doc. 22]. As such, this lawsuit is
duplicative of Plaintiff’s previously filed lawsuit.

Faced with a duplicative suit such as this one, a federal court may exercise its discretion
to stay or dismiss the suit before it, allow both federal cases to proceed, or enjoin the parties from
proceeding in the other suit. See Smith v. SEC, 129 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1997). With respect
to duplicative suits, the Sixth Circuit has stated that
simple dismissal of the second suit is [a] common disposition because plaintiffs
have no right to maintain two actions on the same subject in the same court,
against the same defendant at the same time. Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d
133, 138–39 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Missouri v. Prudential Health Care Plan,
Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 953-54 (8th Cir. 2001) (joining other courts that have held a
district court may dismiss one of two identical pending actions).
Twaddle v. Diem, 200 F. App’x 435, 438 (6th Cir. 2006) (alterations in original).
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 15] will be GRANTED, and this
action will be DISMISSED as duplicative. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this
action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2