Lininger v. The Franklin County State of Pennsylvania No. 8
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-07518
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lininger v. The Franklin County State of Pennsylvania No. 8, Judge McMahon dismissed the duplicate complaint without prejudice.
Richard E. Lininger’s duplicate lawsuit was dismissed, while his separate pending case under docket number 20-CV-6509 was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Lininger v. The Franklin County State of Pennsylvania No. 8, Richard E. Lininger, representing himself, alleged that the defendants violated his rights. He had already filed a duplicate complaint against the same defendants in a separate case that was pending before another judge of the court.
The court found that the two cases raised the same claims and that litigating both would serve no useful purpose. It dismissed this complaint as duplicative, without prejudice to the pending case identified by docket number 20-CV-6509.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk to mail the order to Lininger and record service. Judge McMahon also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Lininger v. The Franklin County State of Pennsylvania No. 8 · No. 1:20-cv-07518
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 13, 2020
Background
Richard E. Lininger, appearing without a lawyer, brought an action alleging violations of his rights. The opinion states that he had previously submitted a duplicate complaint against the same defendants. That earlier case was pending before Judge Louis L. Stanton under docket number 20-CV-6509.
Court’s Reasoning
The court determined that the complaint raised the same claims as the pending case. Because the two lawsuits were duplicative, the court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by litigating this separate action.
Ruling
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as duplicative, without prejudice to Lininger’s pending case under docket number 20-CV-6509. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Lininger a copy of the order and note service on the docket.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.