Willie Joe Warren v. Mike Perkins, ET AL.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

WILLIE JOE WARREN PLAINTIFF

v. No. 1:26-cv-00093- DAS

MIKE PERKINS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter comes before the Court for consideration of dismissal. In this action, Plaintiff complains about the conditions of his confinement while housed at the Winston-Choctaw County Correctional Facility (“WCCCF”) and names Sheriff Mike Perkins, Nurse Linch Hope, Chief of Security Joel Triplett, and Nurse Pettit as Defendants. See Doc. # 1. In an earlier-filed case, Plaintiff also complains about the conditions of his confinement while housed at WCCCF and names the facility, Sheriff Mike Perkins, and Unknown Triplett as Defendants. See Doc. # 1, Warren v. Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-00072-RP. Plaintiff recently filed a Notice advising the court that it intended the two actions to be just a single civil rights action. Doc. # 13. Thus, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause advising Plaintiff to respond as to why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative to the earlier filed action. Doc. # 14. Plaintiff responded again advising the Court that this case was meant to supplement the first-filed action rather than open a new case entirely. See Doc. # 16. “[A]n action may be dismissed [] if it duplicates claims raised by the same plaintiff in previous or pending litigation.” Emmett v. Hawthorn, 459 F. App’x 490, 491 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). A district court has “broad discretion” in dismissing a complaint as duplicative. See Blakely v. Evans, 574 F. App’x 420, 420 (5th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff is entitled to “one bite at the litigation apple—but not more.” Pittman v. Moore, 980 F. 2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993). Given the circumstances, the instant action was improvidently filed and should be dismissed as duplicative to the earlier-filed case referenced above. The instant action is, therefore, DISMISSED without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s prosecution of his duplicative pending suit, No. 1:26-cv-00072-RP. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Docket Entry Numbers 1 and 4 (from this cause number) and any future submissions from Plaintiff related to this matter in the

earlier-filed cause number. Plaintiff’s pending motions to proceed in forma pauperis [2], [17], in this action are DENIED without prejudice as unnecessarily filed in this action. SO ORDERED, this, the 31st day of July, 2026.

/s/ David A. Sanders DAVID A. SANDERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE