United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING FILING FEE, DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
The plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt 2) is granted. The assessment of even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time.
A lawsuit is duplicative if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors v. Joseph E. Seagram, 572 F.Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (citations omitted)). That is the case here. This civil action is identical in all material respects to Jason T. Meyers v. Indiana Department of Correction, et al., 1:15-cv-471-TWP-MJD filed on March 20, 2015. The complaint submitted in this action is an excerpt of the complaint submitted in cause number 1:15-cv-471-TWP-MJD. There is no reason for duplicative lawsuits which drain scarce judicial resources. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice. See Rizzo v. City of Wheaton, Ill., 462 Fed.Appx. 609, 613, 2011 WL 5903823, 3 (7th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have ample discretion to dismiss duplicative litigation. . . .”); Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir.1995)(“Federal district courts have the inherent power to administer their dockets so as to conserve scarce judicial resources.”)
Judgment consistent with this Entry ...