Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00673/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00673-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael A. Leon, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Meggitt PLC, et al., 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-00673--CKJ 

ORDER 

 On June 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Meggitt PLC alleging 

negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, slander, and invasion of 

privacy false light in the District of Columbia. (Doc. 1). Additionally, Plaintiff filed a 

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Doc. 2) and a Motion for Permission 

to E-File. (Doc. 3). 

 On July 19, 2013, Plaintiff’s case was transferred to the District of Arizona. (Doc. 

5). Pursuant to the transfer order, the case was transferred because the alleged 

wrongdoing occurred in Arizona and Plaintiff had filed an identical complaint in the 

District of Arizona. (Doc. 4). After the case was transferred, Plaintiff filed another 

Motion for Permission to E-File, (Doc. 8) and a Motion to Issue Summons to Effect 

Service of Process. (Doc. 9). 

 Before commencing this case, Plaintiff filed a prior case, Leon v. Meggitt PLC, 

No. 4:13-cv-0287-TUC-JGZ, which is also pending in the District of Arizona. 

 

 I. Screening of Complaint 

Case 4:13-cv-00673-CKJ Document 10 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

This Court is required to dismiss a case if the Court determines that the allegation 

of poverty is untrue, 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(A), or if the Court determines that the action 

"(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)(B). 

II. A Duplicative Action Must Be Dismissed 

 An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously 

litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); see also McWilliams v. 

State of Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (11th Cir. 1997) (repetitious action may be 

dismissed as frivolous or malicious); Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(“district courts may dismiss a duplicative complaint raising issues directly related to 

issues in another pending action brought by the same party”); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 

1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is 

subject to dismissal as malicious). 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint and this action are dismissed as duplicative of 

4:13-cv-0287-TUC-JGZ. (Doc. 1). 

 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Doc. 2), 

Plaintiff’s two Motions for Permission to E-File, (Docs. 3, 8), and Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Issue Summons to Effect Service of Process, (Doc. 9) are denied as moot. 

 

Case 4:13-cv-00673-CKJ Document 10 Filed 08/05/13 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 3. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close its file in 

this matter. 

 Dated this 2nd day of August, 2013. 

Case 4:13-cv-00673-CKJ Document 10 Filed 08/05/13 Page 3 of 3