Jones v. Willie et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT (ECF No.s 2 &3). Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 9/18/2015. (no judgment required) (Todd, James)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION TOMMY EARL JONES, Plaintiff, v. DONALD WILLIE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:14-cv-02725-JDT-tmp ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT (ECF Nos. 2 & 3). On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff Tommy Earl Jones (“Jones”), who was at the time of filing incarcerated as an inmate at the West Tennessee State Penitentiary (“WTSP”) in Henning, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) On December 22, 2014, Jones filed by a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) The Clerk shall record the defendants as Dr. Donald Willie, Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) Commissioner Derrick Schofield, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam, and Dr. Lynnette Williams. The Complaint in the instant case has identical complaints to that in another case filed by Jones, Jones v. Donald Willie, et al., No. 14-2492-JDT-dkv (W.D. Tenn.), except that the Complaint in the instant case is an abbreviated version and was signed on September 14, 2014, compared to the Complaint in case number 14-2492 which was signed on an earlier date. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the instant case as duplicative of case number 14-2492. The Clerk is directed to administratively close case number 14-2725 without entry of a judgment. All 1 documents submitted by Jones pertaining to the matters at issue in these suits shall be filed only in case number 14-2492. Pending Motions for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 2.) and for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3.) are DENIED as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED s/James D. Todd JAMES D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?