From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burton v. Inmate Trust Fund

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
May 2, 2013
13-cv-292-wmc (W.D. Wis. May. 2, 2013)

Summary

In Burton v. Inmate Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-00292-wmc (W.D. Wisc. May 2, 2013), the court found that Burton had no connection to the Western District of Wisconsin and "had already filed an identical lawsuit against the same defendant" in the Eastern District of Texas. The court found that since the complaint duplicated another previously filed action, it was "subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as "malicious.

Summary of this case from Burton v. Pace

Opinion

13-cv-292-wmc

05-02-2013

BOBBY E. BURTON, Plaintiff, v. INMATE TRUST FUND, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Bobby E. Burton is a state inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice at the Coffield Unit, which is located in East Texas. Burton has nevertheless filed a complaint in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking monetary relief from the TDCJ Inmate Trust Fund. He is pro se and he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. That motion will be denied and this case will be dismissed for reasons set forth briefly below.

As is self-evident, neither party to this suit has any connection to the Western District of Wisconsin, meaning that the complaint was not properly filed here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). While this court has the authority to transfer a case in the interest of justice to another district in which the action might have been brought, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404, 1406, court records show that Burton has already filed an identical lawsuit against the same defendant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where the Coffield Unit is located. See Bobby E. Burton v. Inmate Trust Fund, 6:13-cv-348 (E.D. Tex.). Because the complaint duplicates another previously filed federal action, this case is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as "malicious." See Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1983) (noting that it is "malicious" for a pro se litigant to file a lawsuit that duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff) (citations omitted)).

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The motion for leave to proceed filed by plaintiff Bobby E. Burton (TDCJ #836846) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED as malicious for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
2. The clerk of court will provide a copy of this order to the plaintiff; to the TDCJ Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box 13084, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711; and to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, 211 West Ferguson, Tyler, Texas, 75702, Attention: Manager of the Three-Strikes List.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________

WILLIAM M. CONLEY

District Judge


Summaries of

Burton v. Inmate Trust Fund

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
May 2, 2013
13-cv-292-wmc (W.D. Wis. May. 2, 2013)

In Burton v. Inmate Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-00292-wmc (W.D. Wisc. May 2, 2013), the court found that Burton had no connection to the Western District of Wisconsin and "had already filed an identical lawsuit against the same defendant" in the Eastern District of Texas. The court found that since the complaint duplicated another previously filed action, it was "subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as "malicious.

Summary of this case from Burton v. Pace
Case details for

Burton v. Inmate Trust Fund

Case Details

Full title:BOBBY E. BURTON, Plaintiff, v. INMATE TRUST FUND, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Date published: May 2, 2013

Citations

13-cv-292-wmc (W.D. Wis. May. 2, 2013)

Citing Cases

Burton v. Pace

" Id. at *2. In Burton v. Inmate Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-00292-wmc (W.D. Wisc. May 2, 2013), the court…

Burton v. Chung

During the screening of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court discovered, after reviewing…