Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-82 (MTT)
04-07-2016
VIVIAN REDDING, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH LEE JAMES, Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Vivian Redding has moved to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 2). An individual may be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis if he declares in an affidavit that he is unable to prepay court fees "or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, § 1915(e) directs courts to dismiss actions which are frivolous or malicious. Duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under § 1915 as malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal of duplicative litigation because "an [in forma pauperis] complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed" under § 1915); see also Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
It appears that the facts supporting Redding's Title VII complaint in this case are the same as those pled in another action currently pending in this Court, case number 5:14-cv-407. The two complaints are almost identical. (Doc. 1; Complaint, Redding v. Fanning, No. 5:14-cv-407, at Doc. 1 (2014)). Because Redding's claims in this case are duplicative of the claims raised in the pending action, this case is DISMISSED. Therefore, there is no need to address Redding's motion for the appointment of counsel. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Doc. 2).
Redding subsequently filed a more definite statement in the pending case. Plaintiff's More Definite Statement Pursuant [to] Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Redding v. Fanning, No. 5:14-cv-407, at Doc. 9. --------
SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2016.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT