Opinion
Case No. 1:14-cv-845
02-09-2015
REGINALD MYERS, Plaintiff, v. SPECIAL AGENT LAKES, Defendant.
Dlott, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Terre Haute Correctional Institution, brings this civil rights action against defendant Special Agent Lakes. By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 § 804, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); § 805, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a "litigant whose riling fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or "wholly incredible." Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are "fantastic or delusional" in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).
Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l). A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be "liberally construed" and "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 ("dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a claim" under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not "accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombfy, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombfy, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement." Id. at 557. The complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).
In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that on February 9, 2009, defendant Special Agent Lakes took $3,800 from plaintiff without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so. Plaintiff indicates that in a separate criminal matter, Case No. 1:10-cr-69-1, the Court ordered that the money be returned to him. He brings the instant action based on defendant's alleged failure to comply with the Order.
For relief, plaintiff seeks judgment against defendant in the sum of $3,800 plus interest from the date of the Court's Order, punitive damages, and any and all other relief to which he may be entitled.
Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed as it is duplicative of the claims currently pending in his criminal case. Review of the Court's docket in plaintiff's criminal case confirms that the Court granted plaintiff's motion for the return of property. USA v. Meyers, Case No. 1:10-cr-69-1, (S.D. Ohio, July 25, 2014) (Barrett, J.) (Doc. 145). However, the United States subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order, which remains pending in that case. Therefore, this action is duplicative of the issues currently pending in plaintiff's criminal case. The Supreme Court has recognized that "considerations of [w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation,'" have given rise to the general principle that duplicative litigation in the federal court system is to be avoided. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). District courts, therefore, have the inherent power to dismiss an action when it is duplicative of another action pending in the federal court. See Green v. Quarterman, No. Civ. A. H-08-553, 2008 WL 2489840, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2008) (citing Remington Rand Corp.-Delaware v. Bus. Sys. Inc., 830 F.2d 1274, 1275-76 (3rd Cir. 1987) (and Supreme Court cases cited therein)); see also Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Marino, 63 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993)) ("A federal suit may be dismissed for 'reasons of wise judicial administration . . . whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court.'")). Such power should be exercised in this case, given that the precise issues plaintiff raises are currently pending before Judge Barrett and are properly considered in that case.
Accordingly, in sum, the undersigned finds that plaintiff's allegations are duplicative of claims raised in Case No. 1:10-cr-69-1 and should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). Date: 2/9/15
/s/_________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report & Recommendation ("R&R") within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent's objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).