# HAMMOND

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · August 6, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11415201

## Case

- **Full name:** Khalil K. Hammond v. Superintendent Michael Zaken
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 6, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11415201

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11415201. Public record. Not legal advice.