Washington v. Galloway

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01287
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRIAN WASHINGTON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-1287

CAPTAIN GALLOWAY, ET AL. SECTION “B” (5) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

in forma pauperis pro se

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding was filed by plaintiff, Brian Washington, against Captain Galloway, Lyft, Inc., State Farm, SeAendrea Albert, Stephen Eckholdt, the Galloway Law Firm, and St. Tammany Parish Jail. ECF No. 3, Complaint. Washington is currently a pretrial detainee at the St. Tammany Parish Jail. In this complaint, he alleges retaliation in prison related to a civil lawsuit he filed in state court involving the Galloway Law Firm, and he claims that he was sexually abused. He requests monetary compensation and injunctive relief. Federal law requires that federal courts “review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity” and dismiss the complaint if it iisn mfoarlmiciao upsa. u p2e8r iUs.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), 1915A(b)(1). Similarly, with respect to actions filed , federal law also provides that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that… the action… is … malicious….” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Repetitious litigation raising the saSmeee Rcoabuesres oonf va. Bctrieoenn as a previous or pending lawsuit is subject Ptoit dtmisamni svs. aMl oaos rmealicious. , 444 F. App’x 841, 842 (5th Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has made it clear that a duplicative complaint is malicious if it asserts claims previously asserted by the plaintiff iLne waniso vth. Seerc 'lya wofs Puuitb, . eSiatfheetry &p eCnodrrin.g or resolved, even if it adds new or different defendants. , 508

F. App'x 341, 344 & n. 2 (5th Cir. 2013) (“A case is duplicative if it involvesB ‘athilee ys avm. Jeo hsnesroiens of events’ and allegations of ‘many of the same facts as an earlier suit.’ ”); , 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal of successive complaint suing 1 different defendants but repeating the same factual allegations asserted in earlier case). Here, court records refute Washington’s false claim in his complaint that he has not begun other lawsuits in state or federal court dealing with the same facts involved in this action or relating to his imprisonment (ECF No. 3 at 8, Complaint Sect. C). The captioned complaint repeats the same allegations he made in a prior case against defendants, Captain Galloway, Andrea Albert, Galloway Law Firm and St. Tammany Parish Jail, although this new complaint names three additional defendants, Lyft, Inc., StateW Faasrhmin gatnodn Svt. eGpahlleonw Eacyk, ehto aldl.t (an attorney at the Galloway Law Firm, like Andrea Albert). , Civ. Action No. 25-883 “T”(2) c/w 25-649 “T”(2). The lead case, Civil Action No. 25-649 “T”(2), is currently pending, along with consolidated member cases, Civ. Action Nos. 25-882 “T”(2); 25-883 “T”(2) and 25-1144 “T”(2), all filed in rapid succession by Washington and alleging similar claims involving the Galloway law firm and its attorneys, retaliation and 2 sexual abuse. Therefore, Washington’s claims in this lawsuit are subject to dismissal as Lewis L1ewis An amended petition in Washington’s pending litigation is optional, as the Fifth Circuit observed in . , 508 F.2d at 1021 n. 2 (“That the instant complaint names three different defendants does not change the result [because] Lewis may seek to amend his complaint in the first lawsuit, under Rule 15(a)(2) of the FederaWl Rasuhliensg otfo Cn ivv.i lS Pt. rToacmedmuaren,y t Po anraismhe J athile, e tth arle.e new defendants.”) 2 malicious without prejudice to his pursuing the claims in his prior pending consolidated lawsuit. RECOMMENDATION IT IS RECOMMENDED

DISMFoISr StEheD f oregoing reasons, that Brian Washington’s complaint bFeU RTHER RECaOsM mMalEicNiDouEsD pursuant to 28 U.S.CD. I§S§M 1I9S1S5E(De)W(2I)T(BH)O(iU) aTn PdR 1E9J1U5DAI(CbE)(1). It is that his claims be to their 3 prosecution in Civil Action No. 25-649 “T”(2). A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the parDtoyu hgalsa sbse ve.n U sneirtveedd S wtaittehs nAouttioce. Athssaotc s.uch consequences will result from a failure to object. , 79 th 4 F.3d 1415 (5 Cir. 1996) (en banc). 30th July New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2025.

MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 In the event that the District Judge determines that the instant complaint should not be dismissed as malicious, the undersigned alternatively recommends that this action be transferred to Section T and Magistrate Division 2 pursuant to Local Rule 3.1.1 for handling and possible consolidation with Civil Action 25- 649 “T”(2)D. ouglass 4