BECKMAN v. VANIHEL

S.D. Indiana

BECKMAN v. VANIHEL

DecidedNovember 20, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-00608

StatusUnknown

This text of BECKMAN v. VANIHEL (BECKMAN v. VANIHEL) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BECKMAN v. VANIHEL, (S.D. Ind. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN BECKMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:20-cv-00608-JPH-MJD ) FRANK VANIHEL, ) ) Defendant. )

Order Dismissing Action as Duplicative and Denying Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot

This action is dismissed because it is duplicative of Beckman v. Vanihel, case number 2:20-cv-00607-JPH-DLP, filed in this Court at the same time this action was filed. Both actions name the same defendant for policies at the same correctional facility alleged to impinge on the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The first suit filed concerns a prison policy alleged to prevent inmates from purchasing items such as games from outside vendors, and this suit concerns a policy preventing inmates from purchasing photographs from outside vendors. "[A] district court may dismiss a complaint if it duplicates another federal case, such as when the 'claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.'" Northern v. Stroger, 676 F. App'x 607, 608 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc., 694 F.3d 873, 888–89 (7th Cir. 2012)); Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir. 1995) (same); Rizzo v. City of Wheaton, Ill., 462 F. App'x 609, 613 (7th Cir. 2011) (same). Mr. Beckman may add the specific factual allegations from this suit to his earlier suit by filing an amended complaint within the time allowed for doing so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is denied as moot. If Mr. Beckman believes these actions should not procced as one, and that this action should have been allowed to proceed independently of 1:20-cv-00607-JPH-MJD, he must file a motion for reconsideration no later than twenty-eight days after entry of this Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). Final judgment in accordance with this Order shall now enter. SO ORDERED. Date: 11/20/2020 Slam ruck lbanlove James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: Christopher Stephen Beckman 100203 Wabash Valley Correctional Facility - Inmate Mail/Parcels 6908 S. Old US Hwy 41 P.O. Box 1111 Carlisle, IN 47838

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN BECKMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:20-cv-00608-JPH-MJD ) FRANK VANIHEL, ) ) Defendant. )

Order Dismissing Action as Duplicative and Denying Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot

This action is dismissed because it is duplicative of Beckman v. Vanihel, case number 2:20-cv-00607-JPH-DLP, filed in this Court at the same time this action was filed. Both actions name the same defendant for policies at the same correctional facility alleged to impinge on the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The first suit filed concerns a prison policy alleged to prevent inmates from purchasing items such as games from outside vendors, and this suit concerns a policy preventing inmates from purchasing photographs from outside vendors. "[A] district court may dismiss a complaint if it duplicates another federal case, such as when the 'claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.'" Northern v. Stroger, 676 F. App'x 607, 608 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc., 694 F.3d 873, 888–89 (7th Cir. 2012)); Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir. 1995) (same); Rizzo v. City of Wheaton, Ill., 462 F. App'x 609, 613 (7th Cir. 2011) (same). Mr. Beckman may add the specific factual allegations from this suit to his earlier suit by filing an amended complaint within the time allowed for doing so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is denied as moot. If Mr. Beckman believes these actions should not procced as one, and that this action should have been allowed to proceed independently of 1:20-cv-00607-JPH-MJD, he must file a motion for reconsideration no later than twenty-eight days after entry of this Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). Final judgment in accordance with this Order shall now enter. SO ORDERED. Date: 11/20/2020 Slam ruck lbanlove James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: Christopher Stephen Beckman 100203 Wabash Valley Correctional Facility - Inmate Mail/Parcels 6908 S. Old US Hwy 41 P.O. Box 1111 Carlisle, IN 47838

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BECKMAN v. VANIHEL, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckman-v-vanihel-insd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack