1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

_________________________________________________________________

JOHN CORRION,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:09-CV-11863

DAVID L. MORSE, et. al.,

Defendants,

 /

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff John Corrion, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Bellamy Creek

Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee in this

action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After careful consideration, the court summarily

dismisses the complaint as duplicative of a previously filed civil rights complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was convicted of solicitation to murder and of being a second-felony

habitual offender in the Livingston County Circuit Court and was sentenced to 21 years,

10 months to 40 years in prison. Petitioner was previously convicted of assault with

intent to do great bodily harm less than murder for assaulting his ex-wife in Livingston

County Circuit Court. Plaintiff’s solicitation to murder conviction was affirmed on appeal. 

See People v. Corrion, No. 278169, 2008 WL 4332096 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2008);

lv. den. 759 N.W.2d 359 (2009). Plaintiff has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

2:09-cv-11863-RHC-CEB Doc # 5 Filed 06/30/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 43
2

challenging his solicitation to murder conviction, pending before Judge David Lawson in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 

Plaintiff now claims that Defendants have withheld transcripts and other materials

that would assist him in obtaining relief from both of his criminal convictions. Plaintiff

seeks monetary and injunctive relief. Plaintiff previously filed an identical lawsuit in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against these

defendants and involving the same claims, which was dismissed without prejudice by

Judge Victoria A. Roberts. See Corrion v. Morse, No. 09-11404, 2009 WL 1086788

(E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2009).

II. STANDARD

Civil rights complaints filed by a pro se prisoner are subject to the screening

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir.

2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to dismiss complaints

that are frivolous, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is

frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it lacks an arguable

basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, when, construing the complaint in a

light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepting all the factual allegations as true, the

plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support if his claims that would entitle

him to relief. Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Kline v.

Roberts, 87 F.3d 176, 179 (6th Cir. 1996); Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d

2:09-cv-11863-RHC-CEB Doc # 5 Filed 06/30/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 44
3

1130, 1138 (6th Cir. 1995).

In addition, “a district court may, at any time, dismiss sua sponte a complaint for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated,

unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v.

Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999)(citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-

37 (1974)).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and subject to dismissal, because it is – with

minor and inconsequential alterations – an exact duplicate of his previously dismissed

civil rights complaint. See McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 575 (10th Cir.

1997). Repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed

under the in forma pauperis statute as frivolous or malicious. Id.; see also English v.

Runda, 875 F.2d 863, *1 (6th Cir. May 18, 1989). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt.# 1] is

DISMISSED with prejudice.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 30, 2009

2:09-cv-11863-RHC-CEB Doc # 5 Filed 06/30/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 45
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-11863.CORRION.Dismiss.Dup.Compl.db.eew.wpd

4

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, June 30, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-11863-RHC-CEB Doc # 5 Filed 06/30/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 46