Case Name: Demario WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Attorney General of Texas; President George W. Bush; Governor of Texas; United States Army, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-03
Citations: 298 F. App'x 383
Docket Number: No. 08-20485
Parties: Demario WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Attorney General of Texas; President George W. Bush; Governor of Texas; United States Army, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
Demario WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Attorney General of Texas; President George W. Bush; Governor of Texas; United States Army, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-20485.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 3, 2008.
Demario Walker, Leakesvifle, MS, pro se.
Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Demario Walker, a Mississippi Department of Corrections inmate, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on May 16, 2008. Walker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the Army's "don't ask — don't tell" policy, complaining that his rights to due process and equal protection were violated.
On May 12, 2008 — four days before this suit was filed — Walker had filed another suit raising identical claims against the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Civil Action l:08cv0381. Walker concedes that the complaint in the present suit was a photocopy of his earlier complaint filed in the Western District of Texas. The second complaint, the one filed in the Southern District of Texas, was dismissed.
A district court may dismiss a complaint that is duplicative of another federal lawsuit filed by the same plaintiff. Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir.1993). There certainly is such duplication here. Consequently, the district court did not err in dismissing what was Walker's second complaint on the same matter.
We AFFIRM.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.