From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burros v. Mich. State Indus.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 16, 2013
Case Number: 4:13-CV-14398 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2013)

Opinion

Case Number: 4:13-CV-14398

12-16-2013

LEONARD A. BURROS, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN STATE INDUSTRIES, ET AL., Defendants.


HONORABLE TERRENCE G. BERG


OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Leonard A. Burros filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, who is currently released on parole, complains of events that occurred while he was incarcerated at the Parnall Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. The Court finds that the complaint is duplicative of another case pending in this District and, therefore, dismisses the complaint.

On July 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action complaining that defendants Michigan State Industries (a division of the Michigan Department of Corrections), several employees of Michigan State Industries (Dale Baum, Charles Thomas Adler, and Chris Reynolds), and the warden of Parnall Correctional Facilities (Debra Scutt) placed him in imminent danger by failing to provide him a safe-working environment. He alleged that because of the unsafe conditions, he was electrocuted while working at his prison job and continues to suffer physical injuries and mental anguish. That complaint was assigned to the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts. See Burros v. Michigan State Industries, et al., No. 2:13-13252. That complaint is essentially identical to the complaint filed in the pending matter and assigned to the undersigned district judge.

"[A] a suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions." Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This complaint names the same defendants and challenges the same actions as the complaint currently pending before Judge Roberts. Therefore, the instant complaint is duplicative and shall be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the complaint [dkt. #1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

___________________

TERRENCE G. BERG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of this order was served on parties of record on December 16, 2013 using the CM/ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

A. Chubb

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Burros v. Mich. State Indus.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 16, 2013
Case Number: 4:13-CV-14398 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2013)
Case details for

Burros v. Mich. State Indus.

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD A. BURROS, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN STATE INDUSTRIES, ET AL.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 16, 2013

Citations

Case Number: 4:13-CV-14398 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2013)