Summary
The court dismisses Curtis Hampton Jr.’s civil rights complaint as duplicative of his earlier pending case, Hampton v. Villarreal, No. 5:25-cv-13783. The dismissal is without prejudice to the prior case, and the court directs that the filing and administrative fees be applied there. The court further concludes that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the later civil-rights complaint was duplicative of Plaintiff's prior pending complaint and could therefore be dismissed.
- Whether the filing and administrative fees submitted in the later action should be applied to the prior pending case.
- Whether an appeal from the dismissal could be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Holdings
- The complaint was duplicative of Plaintiff's prior pending civil-rights complaint and was properly dismissed without prejudice to the proceedings in the prior case.
- The filing fee and administrative fee submitted in this action were directed to be applied to cure the deficiency in Plaintiff's prior pending case.
- An appeal from the decision would be frivolous and therefore could not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Key quotations
“A legal action is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.”” (at 2)
“The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint in this case is duplicative of his prior, pending complaint and must be dismissed.” (at 3)
Factual background
Curtis Hampton, a Michigan prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint concerning events at Saginaw Correctional Facility. He had already filed an identical complaint in a pending action, Case No. 5:25-cv-13783. After being ordered to cure the filing-fee deficiency in that earlier case, Hampton submitted the same complaint and fees without identifying the prior case, leading the Clerk's Office to open this action.
Procedural history
Plaintiff initially filed a civil-rights complaint in Case No. 5:25-cv-13783 without paying the required filing and administrative fees or submitting an in forma pauperis application. After the court issued a deficiency order, Plaintiff submitted an identical complaint and the fees, but failed to identify the earlier case, causing the Clerk's Office to open this new action. The court dismissed this action as duplicative and directed that the fees be applied to the prior case.