SMITH JR.
v.
ROSADO
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.
The court held that a complaint that is a duplicate of a previously filed amended complaint is considered malicious and subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The plaintiff, a pro se litigant, filed a complaint that appeared to be a duplicate of an amended complaint previously filed in another case. The plai…
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 Immunity From Monetary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Samuel Lee Smith's pro se Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“Motion”), ECF No. [3]. Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who has not paid the required filing fee, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply.
Under the statute, courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time [] 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).
Moreover, “a district court does, and indeed must, have the power to control and direct the cases on its docket.” Burden v. Yates, 644 F. 2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). This includes the inherent power to dismiss a case. Id. The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the Motion, the record, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is dismissed, and the Motion is denied as moot.
Case No. 24-cv-25106-BLOOM/Elfenbein
On December 27, 2024, Defendant filed the Complaint in this case asserting several § 1983 claims, a "Federal Civil Rights" claim, as well as several state law tort claims. See ECF No. [1]. However, these were not original claims. After a review of the Complaint, it appears that the Complaint is a duplicate of the Amended Complaint Defendant filed in Smith v. Rosado, et al., 1:24-cv-24339. See ECF No. [7]. “It is well settled that a plaintiff ‘may not file duplicative complaints in order to expand their legal rights.” Greene v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (quoting Curtis v. Citibank, 226 F. 3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, “a district court has authority as part of its inherent power over its docket administration to stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another case then pending in federal court.” Greene, 727 F. Supp. at 1367; see also Moore v. Brown, Case No.: 3:22cv02311, 2022 WL 18108679, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2022) (“A complaint that is malicious is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) . . . Applying that definition, the Eleventh Circuit has held that duplicative cases qualify as malicious for purposes of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)”) (citing Daker v. Ward, 999 F. 3d 1300, 1305-06 (11th Cir. 2021)). Since the Court finds that Defendant's instant Complaint is duplicative of the Amended Complaint in Smith v. Rosado, et al., 1:24-cv-24339, the Court will dismiss the case as malicious pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Defendant Samuel Lee Smith's Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Waseem Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2021)
- Burden v. Yates, 644 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Greene v. H & R Block E. Enters., Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2010)