Opinion
22-3315-JWL
02-24-2023
DESHAWN HUGHES, aka DASHAWN HUGHES, Plaintiff, v. TIM EASLEY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action in this Court. The caption of his Complaint references that it is being filed “In the State Court in and for the State of Kansas” and purports to be brought as a “Kansas State Tort Claim.” (Doc. 1, at 1.) On January 30, 2023, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 3) (“MOSC”), noting that it appears that Plaintiff may have intended to file this Complaint in state court. The MOSC granted Plaintiff until February 17, 2023, to notify the Court if he did not intend to file this action with this Court and to indicate whether or not he seeks to voluntarily dismiss this case.
The Court also found in the MOSC that if Plaintiff did in fact intend to file this action before this Court, this action is subject to dismissal. Plaintiff's factual assertions and claims in this case are duplicative of his claims in Case No. 22-3309, which is currently pending before this Court. “Repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed under § 1915 as frivolous or malicious.” Winkle v. Hammond, 601 Fed.Appx. 754, 754-55 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)); see also Davis v. Bacon, 234 Fed.Appx. 872, 874 (10th Cir. 2007) (dismissing as frivolous a complaint that “substantially mirrors” a prior complaint that was dismissed). The MOSC granted Plaintiff until February 17, 2023, in which to show good cause why this matter should not be dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 22-3309.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff has failed to either pay the filing fee for this case or to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the MOSC by the Court's deadline. The MOSC provides that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to respond by the Court's deadline, this matter may be dismissed without further prior notice to Plaintiff.” (Doc. 3, at 1.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.