Opinion

HAMMOND

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Filed
Aug 6, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 44.1%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KHALIL K. HAMMOND, )

)

) 2:23-cv-1151

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL )

)

ZAKEN; ,

)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This civil-rights case was referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher B.

Brown for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and

the Local Rules of Court applicable to Magistrate Judges. Pending before the Court

is an R&R filed by Magistrate Judge Brown. ECF 111. He recommended that certain

claims be dismissed with prejudice, others be allowed to proceed, and that the

preliminary-injunction motion be denied.

Mr. Hammond filed a motion for leave to file objections out of time on April 21,

2026. ECF 116. The Court hereby grants leave, and considers the objections that

were attached to the motion for leave. On review, the Court overrules the

objections.

First, Mr. Hammond objects to dismissal of claims he has already brought as

part of a pending class action in the Middle District. ECF 116 at 2–3. The Court

agrees with Judge Brown that his claims here are duplicative of the ones in that case.

ECF 111 at 22–23. Mr. Hammond can’t bring the same lawsuit against the same

Defendants at the same time in two different courts.

, 850 F.2d 969, 971 (3d Cir. 1988), , 493 U.S. 182 (1990). Mr.

Hammond argues that some aspects of his claims here might be unique, but the Court

doesn’t identify any material differences, and if there are some minor differences in

the claims, that can also be sorted out in the Middle District case, potentially at the

class-certification stage or through a motion to sever certain claims there.1

Second, Mr. Hammond objects to the denial of the preliminary injunction. The

Court agrees again with Judge Brown that denial was proper as the requested relief

went more to the ultimate merits of the Middle District case, and, so, if raised, should

be raised in that case.

For these reasons, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF 111) as the opinion of the

Court.

BY THE COURT:

Dated: August 6, 2026 /s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan

United States District Judge

CC:

Khalil Hammond

KC9993

SCI PHOENIX

1200 Mokychic Drive

Collegeville, PA 19426

1 Mr. Hammond is right that this case was brought before the class action. But the

operative complaint here was filed after the operative complaint in the Middle

District case. ECF 111 at 22. That timing, plus the fact that the other case is a

counseled case and a class action (in which Mr. Hammond is a named plaintiff and

therefore a fiduciary of the class), weighs in favor of this case yielding to that one.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.