The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 24-cv-25106-BLOOM/Elfenbein
SAMUEL LEE SMITH, JR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARLOS ROSADO, ELISSA WEINTRAUP,
THE VILLAGE OF PINECREST
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Samuel Lee Smith’s pro se Motion for
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“Motion”), ECF No. [3]. Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant
who has not paid the required filing fee, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply.
Under the statute, courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time [] the court determines that . . .
(B) the action or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Moreover, “a district court does, and indeed must, have the power to control and direct the
cases on its docket.” Burden v. Yates, 644 F.2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). This
includes the inherent power to dismiss a case. Id. The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the
Motion, the record, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is
dismissed, and the Motion is denied as moot.
On December 27, 2024, Defendant filed the Complaint in this case asserting several § 1983
claims, a “Federal Civil Rights” claim, as well as several state law tort claims. See ECF No. [1].
However, these were not original claims. After a review of the Complaint, it appears that the
Complaint is a duplicate of the Amended Complaint Defendant filed in Smith v. Rosado, et al.,
1:24-cv-24339. See ECF No. [7]. “It is well settled that a plaintiff ‘may not file duplicative
complaints in order to expand their legal rights.”’ Greene v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc.,
727 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (quoting Curtis v. Citibank, 226 F.3d 133, 140 (2d
Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, “a district court has authority as part of its inherent power over its docket
administration to stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another case then pending in federal
court.” Greene, 727 F. Supp. at 1367; see also Moore v. Brown, Case No.: 3:22cv02311, 2022 WL
18108679, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2022) (“A complaint that is malicious is subject to dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) . . . Applying that definition, the Eleventh Circuit has held that
duplicative cases qualify as malicious for purposes of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)”) (citing Daker v. Ward,
999 F.3d 1300, 1305-06 (11th Cir. 2021)). Since the Court finds that Defendant’s instant
Complaint is duplicative of the Amended Complaint in Smith v. Rosado, et al., 1:24-cv-24339, the
Court will dismiss the case as malicious pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant Samuel Lee Smith’s Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED.
2.
3. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. [3], is DENIED as
MOOT.
4. Defendant’s Motion for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program, ECF No. [4], is
DENIED as MOOT.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
6.
Case No. 24-cv-25106-BLOOM/Elfenbein
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 3, 2025.
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record