Bryant v. Genovese, No. 2:2017cv00078 - Document 6 (E.D. Tenn. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: Faced with a duplicative suit, such as this one, a federal court may exercise its discretion to stay or dismiss the suit before it, allow both federal cases to proceed, or enjoin the parties from proceeding in t he other suit. Accordingly, this Court will DISMISS this § 2254 petition without prejudice. Lastly, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 07/23/2018. (AMP)

Download PDF
Bryant v. Genovese Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE JASON B. BRYANT, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. KEVIN GENOVESE, Respondent. No. 2:17-cv-078-JRG-MCLC MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court upon periodic review. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 17, 2017 [Doc. 1]. In his petition, Petitioner challenges the legality of his confinement pursuant to his February 20, 1998 conviction from the Greene County Circuit Court [Id. at 3]. Petitioner’s first § 2254 habeas petition, filed on May 25, 2005, was dismissed as time-barred. See Bryant v. Carlton, No. 2:05-cv-151, 2006 WL 44269 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 6, 2006). Petitioner also filed an Order from the Sixth Circuit authorizing a second or successive habeas petition [Doc. 1-2]. However, Petitioner also filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which was transferred to this Court on May 18, 2017. See Bryant v. Parker, et al., No. 2:17-cv-097-JRGMCLC, Doc. 1 (E.D. Tenn., filed May 18, 2017). This case remains before the Court, and challenges the same 1998 conviction [Id.]. “As between federal district courts, . . . though no precise rule has evolved, the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United Dockets.Justia.com States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). “Generally, a suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Serlin v. Aruthus Anderson & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993). Faced with a duplicative suit, such as this one, a federal court may exercise its discretion to stay or dismiss the suit before it, allow both federal cases to proceed, or enjoin the parties from proceeding in the other suit. See Smith v. SEC, 129 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1997). With respect to duplicative suits, the Sixth Circuit has stated “[S]imple dismissal of the second suit is [a] common disposition because plaintiffs have no right to maintain two actions on the same subject in the same court, against the same defendant at the same time.” Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138– 39 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Missouri v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 953–54 (8th Cir. 2001) (joining other courts that have held a district court may dismiss one of two identical pending actions). Twaddle v. Diem, 200 F. Appx 435, 438 (6th Cir. 2006) (alterations in original). Accordingly, this Court will DISMISS this § 2254 petition without prejudice. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (explaining that courts have “due flexibility to prevent vexatious litigation,” with respect to duplicative mixed petitions). The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not demonstrated “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. Lastly, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER. ENTER: s/J. RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.