Summary
dismissing appeal from order dismissing complaint that was identical to one from previous action
Summary of this case from Jackson v. New Jersey Div. of Developmental DisabilitiesOpinion
No. 08-1209.
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 December 18, 2008.
Filed: January 13, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-05727), District Judge: Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway.
Kevin Rogers, Newark, NJ, pro se.
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Kevin Rogers, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his civil rights complaint as duplicative of a brief he filed in Civil Action No. 07-01219, which was then pending before the District Court. That pending case was eventually dismissed by order of the District Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 8(a) and 12(e). Rogers appealed from that order and we dismissed the case for failure to timely prosecute under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3(a)(2). See Rogers, et al. v. United States, No. 08-2440.
We agree with the District Court that Rogers took an identical filing from that previous suit and used it as his complaint in the instant litigation. The duplicative nature of the complaint aside, we also find that nowhere amidst the fantastical scenarios and allegations that Rogers describes is a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
In his notice of appeal, Rogers attempts to distinguish the two cases by suggesting that the previous suit involved allegations of "Federal Housing Fraud and Genocide," while the current suit alleges "violations of Federal Funded Programs related to Shelter Transitional Housing and violations of Federal Labors." (NOA at 2-3.) He immediately changes position, however, and claims that the first suit "was concerned with Federal Housing Discrimination and Federal Security Fraud." (NOA at 3.) Rogers' distinctions notwithstanding, the claims in each suit are substantially similar, if not identical in many respects.