IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

EARNEST BARNARD CLAYTON, : : Plaintiff : : VS. : : CIVIL No: 5:24-CV-00367-MTT-AGH Governor BRIAN KEMP, et al., : : Defendants : _________________________________

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Earnest Barnard Clayton, a prisoner at Telfair State Prison in Helena, Georgia, has filed a civil rights complaint under

. ECF No. 1. However, a review of the Court’s records reveals that the above-captioned civil action is duplicative of another complaint filed by this Plaintiff. See Clayton v. Kemp, 5:24-cv-00320-MTT- CHW.1 In both complaints, the Plaintiff raises the same allegations regarding his confinement in multiple prisons and names essentially the same Defendants. Compare ECF No. 1 with ECF No. 1 in Clayton v. Kemp, 5:24-cv-00320-MTT-CHW. “As part of its general power to administer its docket, a district court may stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative” of another active case. Curtis v. Citibank,

(2d Cir. 2000). “[A] suit is duplicative … if the parties, issues, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” IA. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank,

1 The Court is currently in the process of conducting its preliminary screening of Plaintiff’s complaint in Clayton v. Kemp, 5:24-cv-00320-MTT-CHW as mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986). Because the pleadings in the present civil action allege the same claims as a pending civil action, the present action is DISMISSED as

duplicative. Plaintiff cannot file any other pleadings under this civil action number 5:24- CV-00367-MTT-AGH. Lastly, Plaintiff is cautioned that “[a]ccess to the courts is unquestionably a right of considerable constitutional significance,” but it is “‘neither absolute nor unconditional.’” Miller v. Donald,

(11th Cir. 2008). “Conditions and restrictions on each person’s access are necessary to preserve the judicial resource for all other persons.

Frivolous and vexatious law suits threaten the availability of a well-functioning judiciary to all litigants.”

Accordingly, “district courts are authorized by the All Writs Act,

(a), to restrict access to vexatious and abusive litigants.”

These restrictions may include but are not limited to dismissals for abuse of the judicial process or a monetary penalty or a prohibition against future pro se filings pursuant to Rule 11 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, Plaintiff qualifies as vexatious and abusive litigant in that he has filed over thirty-five federal lawsuits and is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to

(g) for having three or more qualifying strikes. See e.g., ECF Nos. 6 and 7 in Clayton v. Ward, 5:22-cv-375-TES-MSH (M.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2023) (district court denied

this Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(g) citing to Plaintiff’s previous strikes and dismissed the complaint). Plaintiff has further had multiple lawsuits dismissed for his repeated failure to obey court orders. See e.g., Clayton v. Williams, 6:16-cv-174 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2017); Clayton v. Davidson, 6:17-cv-149 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2019); Clayton v. Allen, 6:19-cv-11 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 30, 2019); Clayton v. Martin, 5:20-cv-270-MTT-MSH (M.D. Ga. Oct. 1, 2020); Clayton v. Ward, 5:21-cv-310-

TES-CHW (M.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2021); Clayton v. Ivey, 5:22-cv-430-TES-MSH (M.D. Ga. Mar. 16, 2023); Clayton v. Ward, 5:24-cv-161-MTT-AGH (M.D. Ga. July 29, 2024). Plaintiff is hereby instructed to refrain from filing duplicative suits and/or motions or he could face sanctions for abusing the judicial process. SO ORDERED, this 8th day of November, 2024.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell_____________ MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT