Diederich v. Michigan Secretary of State

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-10005
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHAD DIEDERICH, Case No. 25-10005 Plaintiff, Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

v.

MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE [2] AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT [1] On January 2, 2025, Chad Diederich filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against the Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson alleging that Benson violated his due process rights. (ECF No. 1.) As far as the Court can discern, Diederich argues that Benson revoked or suspended his driver’s license pursuant to Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.320(1)(c). (Id.) According to Diedrich, however, his license should not have been revoked or suspended because he was “was only given two moving violations” and “each moving violation was dismissed by the subsequent Court of law in the particular jurisdiction.” (Id. at PageID.7); see MCL § 257.320(1) (“The secretary of state . . . may conduct an investigation or reexamination of a person [who] . . . within a 24-month period, has been involved in 3 accidents . . . and the official police report indicates a moving violation on the part of the driver in each of the accidents.”). Along with his complaint, Diederich also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The Court may authorize commencement of an action without prepayment of the filing fee and costs if the plaintiff demonstrates they cannot pay

such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Here, Diederich alleges he has no source of income and no savings (see ECF No. 2), so the Court finds that he has made the required showing of indigence. That said, “[a]s part of its general power to administer its docket, a district court may stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit.” Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000); see Johnson v. Elum, No. 20-12733, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199167, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 27, 2020). A

complaint is duplicative when the “parties and available relief do not significantly differ from an earlier-filed action.” Cummings v. Mason, No 11-649, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75474, 2011 WL 2745937, at *2 (W.D. Mich. July 13, 2011). Here, Diederich’s complaint is identical to a complaint he filed in a different lawsuit currently pending before this Court. See Diederich v. Michigan Secretary of State, No. 24-13241, ECF No. 1.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Diederich’s motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and SUMMARILY DISMISSES this case as duplicative of case number 24-13241. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 3, 2025 s/Laurie J. Michelson LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE