United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
SUBMIT DOCUMENTS AS EXHIBITS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Marvin Belser, Sr., (“Plaintiff”) recently filed
a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and a motion to submit certain documents as
exhibits. Plaintiff is a state prisoner at the Carson City
Correctional Facility in Carson City, Michigan. He names the
following individuals as additional plaintiffs or
“interested parties:” Precious Renee Belser,
Marvin Belser, Jr., Latrina Marie Belser, Genesis Lashette
Underwood, and Elijah LaMarvin Underwood. The defendants are
Wayne County, Michigan Circuit Judges Vonda R. Evans and
Sheila Ann Gibson Manning and assistant Wayne County
prosecutor Danielle Hagaman Clark.
Court understands the complaint to allege that, in 2005,
Plaintiff was charged in state district court with nine
counts of criminal sexual conduct, and even though the
charges were dismissed, he was bound over to state circuit
court. Judge Evans presided over Plaintiff's criminal
trial in circuit court and told Plaintiff that he would not
receive a fair trial in her courtroom. Judge Evans later
found Plaintiff guilty of four counts of first-degree
criminal sexual conduct involving one of Plaintiff's
complaint also states that confidential information about
Plaintiff's five children was added to his pre-sentence
investigation report and made available for anyone to read
through a public computer. Some inmates obtained information
about Plaintiff from his child-protective-services case, and
in 2014, he was attacked by three unknown inmates. He was
denied medical assistance and sought protection from state
now seeks money damages for his “wrongful
conviction.” He also seeks an order directing the state
court to dismiss the criminal charges against him. He appears
to claim that the defendants violated his right not to be
placed in double jeopardy and that Judges Evans and Gibson
Manning committed judicial conduct through their incompetence
and neglect, improper demeanor, bias, and conflict of
Court granted Plaintiff permission to proceed without
prepayment of the fees and costs for this action. Pursuant to
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, federal district
courts must screen an indigent prisoner's complaint and
dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim for which relief can be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A;
Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249, 252 (6th Cir. 2010);
Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1036 (6th Cir.
2001). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). “A complaint is subject to dismissal
for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as
true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.”
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
complaint is subject to dismissal because he made similar
allegations about Judge Evans and Judge Gibson Manning in a
lawsuit that he filed earlier this year. In that case, he
raised the same issue about the dismissal of the charges in
state district court and his subsequent conviction on four
counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in Judge
Evans' courtroom. Plaintiff also raised the issue about
confidential information being placed in his pre-sentence
report and available to anyone on a public computer. This
Court summarily dismissed the complaint for failure to state
a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court determined
that Judges Evans and Gibson Manning were immune from suit
under § 1983 and that the alleged violations of state
law failed to state a claim under § 1983. See
Belser, et al. v. Evans, et al., No. 16-12792 (E.D.
Mich. Oct. 4, 2016).
filing of multiple federal actions arising out of the same
facts is strongly discouraged, and plaintiffs take such a
course at the peril that the adjudication of one case will
have preclusive effect on the other.” Twaddle v.
Diem, 200 F. App'x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2006). In
fact, “ ‘[r]epetitious litigation of virtually
identical causes of action' may be dismissed under §
1915 as frivolous or malicious.” McWilliams v.
Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.
1988)); accord Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that “[t]here is no
abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under
§ 1915(d) a complaint ‘that merely repeats pending
or previously litigated claims' ”) (quoting
Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021); Risley v. Hawk, 918
F.Supp. 18, 22 (D.D.C.1996) (stating that, “[p]ursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Court may dismiss a
prisoner's in forma pauperis action where the
complaint duplicates the allegations of other pending or
previously filed litigation”); see also Peoples v.
Reno, 230 F.3d 1359, 2000 WL 1477502, at *1 (6th Cir.
Sept. 26, 2000) (unpublished decision stating that the
district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's case
because it was duplicative of an earlier action that was
virtually the same).
current complaint is substantially the same as his complaint
in case number 16-12792. Although he has added a third
defendant (assistant Wayne County prosecutor Danielle Hagaman
Clark), lawsuits are duplicative if they “involve
‘nearly identical parties and issues.' ”
Baatz v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 814 F.3d
785, 789 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Certified Restoration
Dry Cleaning Network, LLC v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535,
551 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Zide Sport Shop of Ohio v.
Ed Tobergte Assoc., Inc., 16 F. App'x 433, 437 (6th
the facts and the issues are the same, and two of the three
defendants are the same as the defendants in the earlier
case. The Court therefore concludes that the complaint is
duplicative of Plaintiff's complaint in case number
16-12792 and can be ...