JONES
v.
BROWARD SHERIFF OFFICE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pro se plaintiff Willie Jones filed a complaint against the Broward Sheriff Office alleging denial of access to court in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Magistrate Judge dismissed the complaint without prejudice as duplicative of an identical complaint Jones had simultaneously filed in another case before a different judge in the same district.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as duplicative of the complaint in the related pending case before Judge Hunt. The court exercised its discretion under § 1915 to dismiss the duplicative filing, finding that both complaints arose from identical events and contained substantially similar allegations and in forma pauperis applications.
[1] A court may dismiss a case at any time if it determines the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. …
[2] A court has the discretion to dismiss a complaint as duplicative when an identical complaint has already been filed in a pending case.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Plaintiff's Complaint in this case must be dismissed”
Establishes the court's initial determination upon screening that the complaint fails § 1915 requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Jones, a pro se litigant with a history of filing multiple cases in the district, filed a complaint arising from alleged events on April 1, 202…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Monetary Relief Against Immune Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge has been randomly assigned as the presiding Judge for all purposes in this case, including entering a dispositive order, presiding over any trial, and entering a final judgment. [fn 1]
This case was filed by pro se Plaintiff Willie Jones. Mr. Jones is no stranger to this District. He has filed several cases in recent years. See, e.g., Jones v. City of Miami, No. 23-CV-23024- RKA (S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2023) (dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute); Jones v. State of Florida, No. 23-CV-61386-RLR (S.D. Fla. Jul. 20, 2023) (dismissed for failure to comply with Court order to provide information in support of motion to proceed in forma pauperis); Jones v. United States, No. 20-CV-21214-KMW (dismissing § 2255 motion to vacate).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has not paid the required filing fee, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply. More specifically, § 1915 requires dismissal “at any time" if the Court “determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (alterations added). Upon initial screening, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint in this case must be dismissed.
Mr. Jones has previously filed an identical Complaint in a case already pending before U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt. See Jones v. Broward Sherriff, No. 25-CV-60696-PMH (S.D. Fla. April 10, 2025). A review of the record confirms that the claims in the case before Judge Hunt and the instant case concern the alleged events of April 1, 2025, and Plaintiff's claim that he was denied access to the Court in violation of his constitutional First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Compare case No. 25-CV-60696-PMH (ECF No. 1 at 1), with case No. 25-CV-60872- AOV (ECF No. 1). Mr. Jones has also filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs in both cases, containing similar assertions regarding Plaintiff's income, expenses, and assets. See case No. 25-CV-60696-PMH (ECF No. 3), with case No. 25-CV-60872-AOV (ECF No. 3). Thus, Plaintiff has filed duplicative Complaints and requests to proceed in forma pauperis in two cases before the Court.
Accordingly, in the undersigned's discretion, the Complaint in this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as duplicative of the Complaint in case No. 25-CV-60696-PMH. See, e.g., Jackson v. Fiorucci, No. 22-CV-428-JES-KCD, 2022 WL 3028056, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2022) (dismissing § 1983 Complaint as duplicative); Daker v. Ward, 999 F. 3d 1300, 1310 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming dismissal of duplicative complaint as “malicious” under § 1915A(b)(1)). This case is also administratively CLOSED and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on May 12, 2025.
cc: Willie Jones, Pro Se 11570 Royal Palm Blvd Coral Springs, FL 3306
Alicia D.Valle
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[fn 1]: Although any party may withhold consent and request that the case be reassigned to a District Judge, see Admin. Order 2025-11, pro se Plaintiff Jones will be able to request reassignment to a District Judge in the case that remains pending in this District.