McNeese v. Anderson

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JAMES W. MCNEESE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-3026-HLT-ADM

(fnu) ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On February 13, 2025, pro se plaintiff James W. McNeese filed this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF 1.) McNeese filed an amended complaint the following day. (ECF 3.) McNeese alleges that while he was incarcerated at the Sedgwick County Jail, the Sedgwick County Court ordered jail officials to place a foreign object into his body. He sues as defendants Josh Steward in his capacity as the Sedgwick County District Attorney, Officer Anderson (first name unknown), and “clinic staff” member Barbie (last name unknown). As relief, McNeese seeks removal of the foreign object and dismissal of his underlying state criminal case. On April 18, the court ordered McNeese to show cause in writing by May 5 why the court should not recommend that the presiding U.S. district judge dismiss this case as duplicative of three other cases that McNeese brought and that the court previously dismissed. (ECF 12, citing Case Nos. 24-3153-JWL, 24-3227-JWL, 25-3060-JWL.) McNeese has filed three documents that the court construes as responses to the show-cause order. (ECF 23, 25, 26.) Therein, McNeese concedes that he has “filed numerous complaints” (ECF 23), but states that in December 2024, he “failed to prosecute” his claims and would “like to raise this issue in the courts again.” (ECF 25.) McNeese appears to be referencing the Tenth Circuit’s dismissal of his appeal in Case No. 24- 3153-JWL for failure to prosecute. (See ECF 22 in 24-3153-JWL.) The court recommends that the district judge dismiss this case as duplicative. This is one of four cases McNeese has filed based on this same claim that jail officials placed a foreign object into his body. “When a pro se litigant files complaints that are repetitive, duplicative of other

filings, without merit, or frivolous, he abuses the district court process.” Childs v. Miller, 713 F.3d 1262, 1265 (10th Cir. 2013) (applying Prison Litigation Reform Act). “District courts have discretion to control their dockets by dismissing duplicative cases.” Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212, 1217 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Rosiere v. United States, 650 F. App'x 593, 595 (10th Cir. 2016) (upholding dismissal of case as duplicative); Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (“The power to dismiss a duplicative lawsuit is meant to foster judicial economy and the comprehensive disposition of litigation.” (internal quotation and citation omitted)). Although McNeese suggests that he was “intimidated by the courts” in December, thereby leading him not to prosecute the appeal in Case No. 24-3153-JWL and asking for another

opportunity, U.S. District Judge John W. Lungstrum already denied the same request when McNeese raised it in Case No. 24-3153. (ECF 26 in 24-3153-JWL.) McNeese has not presented any facts or circumstances that the court has not already considered. Thus, judicial resources are best served by dismissing this case, the fourth repetitive case brought by McNeese. * * * * * McNeese may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); D. KAN. RULE 72.1.4(b). If he fails to file objections within the fourteen-day time period, no appellate review of the factual and legal determinations in this Report and Recommendation will be allowed by any court. See In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2000). Dated May 5, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Angel D. Mitchell Angel D. Mitchell U.S. Magistrate Judge