Clark v. Hutchison

Background

Cleon Anthony Clark, representing himself, sued Officer Hutchinson and Officer Martinez over alleged excessive force and false arrest. Clark described one incident involving Hutchinson on or about May 6, 2022, and another involving Martinez at an AutoZone on or about July 14, 2022. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion.

Clark had also brought an earlier action against the same defendants. That earlier action initially involved the May 6 incident, and Clark later amended it to add the AutoZone incident. Defendants moved for summary judgment in that earlier action, which was farther along than the 2024 case.

In the 2024 case, Defendants had previously moved to dismiss the complaint as duplicative of the earlier action. On March 20, 2025, the court granted that motion in part and denied it in part: it dismissed the portion concerning the May 6 incident but denied the motion as to the AutoZone incident. Defendants then moved for reconsideration. Clark did not oppose either motion.

Reconsideration Standard

The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. It may be appropriate when there is a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent obvious and serious unfairness. It is not ordinarily a way to present arguments or information that could have been presented earlier.

Defendants relied on Clark’s amended complaint in the earlier action. They acknowledged that the amended complaint had been available while the original dismissal motion was being briefed. The court therefore held that the amended complaint was not new evidence and that its availability alone did not justify reconsideration.

The court nevertheless found that reconsideration was warranted to prevent manifest injustice. It concluded that inadequate briefing had failed to give the court all relevant information, which had caused the court to dismiss only part of the 2024 complaint instead of addressing the duplicative nature of the remaining part.

Duplicative Litigation

The court treated Defendants’ reconsideration motion as also renewing their motion to dismiss on duplicative-litigation grounds. It compared the AutoZone allegations in the 2024 complaint with those in Clark’s amended complaint in the earlier action and found that they described the same incident.

The court stated that a plaintiff may not maintain two simultaneous actions in the same court against the same defendants concerning the same subject. It also noted that the earlier action was significantly farther along, so allowing the 2024 case to continue could require repeated litigation of identical claims and undermine efficient resolution of the dispute.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and dismissed the 2024 Complaint. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at Docket No. 23 and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.