Sherman v. Sparks

Opinion

CLERE’S OFFICE U.S. DIST. ¢ AT HARRISONBURG, V. FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 12, 2025 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLI By: s/J.Vasquez ROBERT SHERMAN, ) DEPUTY CLERK Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25-cv-00478 ) v. ) ) By: Michael F. Urbanski LEAH SPARKS, ) Senior United States District Judge Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert Sherman, an inmate proceeding pro se and without prepayment of the filing fee, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Leah Sparks. Sherman claims that Sparks has unlawfully denied him access to a treatment program offered at the Western Virginia Regional Jail. Because Sherman’s claim is duplicative of the claim asserted in Sherman v. Sparks, No. 7:25-cv-00470 (W.D. Va.), which remains pending, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which governs in forma pauperis proceedings, the court has a mandatory duty to screen initial filings. Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656— 57 (4th Cir. 2006). “Because district courts are not required to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits,” a duplicative action may be dismissed. McClary v. Lightsey, 673 F. App’x 357, 357 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158, 1158 (8th Cir. 1992)). “Generally, lawsuits are duplicative if the parties, issues, and available relief are not different from each other.” Id. (citing Georgia ex rel. Olens v. McCarthy, 833 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2016)).

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the instant action is duplicative of Sherman v. Sparks, No. 7:25-cv-00470, which was filed first. In both cases, Sherman claims that Sparks has discriminated against him by denying him access to a program that a court otdered him to complete. See Compl., Sherman v. Sparks, No. 7:25-cv-00470 WW.D. Va. July 7, 2025); Compl., Sherman v. Sparks, No. 7:25-cv-00478 (W.D. Va. July 18, 2025). Because the instant action involves the same claim at issue in Case No. 7:25-cv-00470, it will be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. Since the complaint filed in this action contains additional factual content, the court will direct the Clerk to docket it as an amended complaint in Case No. 7:25-cv-00470. Por the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An appropriate order will be entered. Entered: August 12, 2025 Michael F. Urbanski U.S. District Judge 2025.08.12 10:07:02 -04'00' Michael F. Urbanski Senior United States District Judge