SCIPIO v. VITEC VIDEOCOM et al, No. 2:2016cv03668 - Document 4 (D.N.J. 2016)
Court Description: LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 11/21/16. (cm )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY FRANK R. LAUTENBERG CHAMBERS OF JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 417 NEWARK, NJ 07102 973-297-4851 November 21, 2016 LETTER OPINION Re: Scipio v. Vitec Videocom, et aL Civil Action No. 16-03668 Dear Litigant: The Court is in receipt of your complaint and application to proceed without prepayment fees or costs in this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See D.E. 1. of Under § 1915, this Court may excuse a litigant from prepayment of fees when the litigant “establish[esl that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). At the outset, Plaintiff sufficiently establishes his inability to pay, and the Court grants his application to proceed in /örma pauperis without prepayment of fees and costs. However, when allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must review complaint and dismiss the action if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to the state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. § I 915(e)(2). “A complaint is frivolous if it ‘lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Okpor v. Sedgwick CMS, No. 12-652!, 2013 WL 1145041, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2013) (quoting Neitzke v. WIlliams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). In addition, a plaintiff is not permitted to file two actions against the same defendants that assert the same or very similar claims. See Walton i’. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (“[Plaintiff] had no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.”); Fabics i. Cm’ ofNew Brunswick. 2025 WI. 6123513, at *j (3d Cir. Oct. 29, 2015) (dismissing a complaint that was “nearly identical” to an earlier complaint filed under a different docket number). A court may dismiss the complaint of a plaintiff proceeding in fomw pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(e)(2)(B)(i) when the plaintiff files a complaint that is “duplicative of, and related to, the same nucleus of Dockets.Justia.com POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE 2 FEDERAL SQUARE, Rooi operative facts” as a prior complaint filed under a different docket number. Hurst v. Counselman, 436 F. App’x 58, 59-61 (3d Cir. 2011). Here, the facts alleged in Plaintiffs complaint are closely related to, and often duplicative of, the allegations asserted in a separate matter on the Court’s docket. Compare I 5-cv-07776 D.E. I with 16-cv-03668 D.E. I (the “15-07776 Action” and “16-03668 Action,” respectffilly). In both matters. Plaintiff asserts the same ten causes of actiont against the same defendants.2 The factual allegations in the two matters vary slightly as to form, but do not differ in any material aspect. Plaintiff may not assert the same causes of action, with the same underlying facts, against the same defendants as a concurrently pending matter. See Walton, 563 F.2d at 70; Fabics v. ofNew Brunswick, 2015 WL 6123513, at * I. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to pursue those claims, he must do so in the 15-07776 Action. In conclusion, Plaintiffs application to proceed in Jbrina pauperis is granted. For the reasons stated above, however, the Clerk of the Court shall not file Plaintiffs complaint. An appropriate order accompanies this opinion. che>que9%. violation of Due Process and Equal The allegations asserted are as follows: Count One Protection under Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Count Two violation of Due Process and Equal Protection of the New Jersey Constitution; Count Three violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Count Four— violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Count Five violation of New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 et seq. (“NJCRA”); Count Six violation of42 U.S.C. § 1986, Count Eight violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 et seq.; Count Seven violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act. N.J.S.A. 34:19-I, ci seq. (“CEPA”); violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of Defamation; and Count Ten Count Nine 1964,42 U.S.C. 2000e. et seq. (“Title VII”). — — — — — — — — 2 — The defendants in both matters are the same except that in the 16-03668 Action, Plaintiff did not assert claims against Marty Frasco, who is one of the defendants named in the 15-07776 Action.