Clark v. Hutchison
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-02147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Clark v. Hutchison, Judge Karas dismissed duplicative claims without prejudice but let claims about a separate Auto Zone incident proceed.
Cleon Anthony Clark’s claims against Officer Hutchinson and Officer Martinez: the duplicative Hutchinson-related portion was dismissed without prejudice, while the Auto Zone-related portion against Martinez survived the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Clark v. Hutchison, Cleon Anthony Clark, representing himself, sued Officers Hutchinson and Martinez over two 2022 incidents. He alleged excessive force and false arrest and sought money damages and an order requiring additional officer training.
The officers argued that the lawsuit repeated an earlier case Clark filed in 2023. The court agreed that the claims involving Hutchinson’s alleged force and Clark’s subsequent arrest substantially duplicated the earlier case. But the court found that the complaint’s separate allegations about Martinez pushing Clark from his scooter and hitting him at an Auto Zone were not included in the earlier case.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed the duplicative portion without prejudice and denied the motion as to the Auto Zone-related portion. Clark may file an amended complaint within 30 days alleging additional facts and claims that are not duplicative; the amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Hutchison · No. 7:24-cv-02147
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
Cleon Anthony Clark, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Officer Hutchinson and Officer Martinez. Clark alleged that Hutchinson and other officers used force against him on or about May 6, 2022, and that he was then arrested. He also alleged that Martinez pushed him from a scooter and hit him at an Auto Zone on or about July 14, 2022. Clark asserted claims involving excessive force and false arrest, and sought $50,000 and an order requiring the officers to undergo additional training.
Motion and governing rule
The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it duplicated a lawsuit Clark had filed in 2023 against the same individual officers. The court explained that a district court may stay or dismiss a duplicative federal lawsuit. Two lawsuits are duplicative when they involve the same parties, claims that were or could have been raised earlier, and the same core facts.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Part 1 of Clark’s 2024 complaint duplicated the 2023 action. Part 1 concerned Hutchinson’s alleged use of excessive force and Clark’s subsequent arrest. The court found that the two complaints involved the same underlying facts, raised common legal questions, could be tried together conveniently, and were claims Clark should have brought in one lawsuit. The court therefore dismissed Part 1.
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the entire 2024 complaint was duplicative. The 2023 complaint contained no allegations about the July 14, 2022, Auto Zone incident involving Martinez. The court therefore denied the motion as to Part 2 of the 2024 complaint.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Because the court described this as the first adjudication of Clark’s claims before it, the dismissal was without prejudice. Clark may file an amended complaint within 30 days, but any new facts or claims must not duplicate those in the 2023 action. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the prior complaints. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.