United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
CORBIN D. JONES, Plaintiff,
NEIL MOONEY, CITY OF MT. VERNON, ILLINOIS, and MT. VERNON COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a former detainee at the Jefferson County Justice Center,
brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time of filing, Plaintiff was
not incarcerated, meaning that he was not a
“prisoner” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. However,
he filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Accordingly, the Court screened the original
Complaint (Doc. 1) and the Amended Complaint (Doc. 7)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neither pleading
survived screening under this standard.
filed his Second Amended Complaint on July 17, 2018. (Doc.
10). The Second Amended Complaint is now before the Court for
screening pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
previously noted, the original Complaint did not survive
screening; it was dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, and Plaintiff
was granted leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 5).
April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc.
7). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claimed that his
constitutional rights were violated on February 14, 2017,
when he was arrested at his mother's home by two police
officers working for the City of Mt. Vernon (Officers Mooney
and Greenwood). In conjunction with screening the Amended
Complaint, the Court divided the pro se action into
the following counts:
Count 1: Mooney violated Plaintiff's
Fourth Amendment rights by forcing his way into
Plaintiff's bedroom to conduct a search without a warrant
Count 2: Mooney violated Plaintiff's
Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by failing to inform him of
his Miranda rights before or after his arrest or while he was
in Mooney's custody.
Count 3: Mooney submitted a police report
containing false statements about the events on February 14,
Count 4: Evidence obtained from
Plaintiff's home that would have been exculpatory in his
criminal prosecution was destroyed.
(Doc. 9, pp. 6-7). The Court then dismissed Counts 1 through
4, explaining as follows:
[T]he claims directed against Officer Mooney are the same
claims at issue in Jones v. Mooney, 17-cv-337-JPG.
The Court knows of no reason Plaintiff should be allowed to
proceed on the same claims, against the same defendant, in
two cases. Interests in “wise judicial
administration” permit dismissal of a federal suit that
parallels another action pending in federal court. See
Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223
(7th Cir. 1993). See also Id. (“The
irrationality of tolerating duplicative litigation in the
federal system is all the more pronounced where, as here, two
federal judges sitting on the same district court are ...
devoting scarce judicial resources to the adjudication of the
same charges by essentially the same plaintiffs against the
same defendants.”). Moreover, Plaintiff is prosecuting
this action under the in forma pauperis statute,
which requires dismissal if the action is deemed frivolous or
malicious. It is malicious for Plaintiff to file more than
one suit against the same defendant based on the same set of
facts. See Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109
(7th Cir. 2003) (suit is “malicious” for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if it is intended to harass or is
otherwise abusive of the judicial process); Pittman v.
Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding
that it is malicious for a plaintiff to file a lawsuit under
the in forma pauperis statute that duplicates
allegations of another pending lawsuit).
(Doc. 9, p. 7).
Counts 1-4 were dismissed from this action with
prejudice. (Doc. 9, pp. 7-8). However, the dismissal was
without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing the claims in his
earlier filed action against Mooney. Id. The Court
also explained that any intended claims against Officer
Greenwood were dismissed without prejudice because he was not
named as a defendant in the case caption. (Doc. 9, p. 6).
Further, the Court dismissed the City of Mt. Vernon without
prejudice because the Amended Complaint did not identify any
municipal policy that was responsible for any alleged
constitutional violations. (Doc. 9, pp. 5-6). Accordingly,
the Amended ...