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

BRIAN KEITH ROBERTS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Case No. 5:25-cv-419-MTT-ALS : Warden ANGELA PHAMS, et al., : : Defendants. : _________________________________ ORDER

Presently pending before the Court is a Complaint (ECF No. 1) filed by pro se Plaintiff Brian Keith Roberts, an inmate in the Riverbend Correctional Facility in Milledgeville, Georgia, seeking relief pursuant to

. In his Complaint, Plaintiff raises claims concerning his treatment at Riverbend. ECF No. 1 at 5. A review of Court records reveals that Plaintiff previously filed a similar complaint about the conditions of his confinement against the same Defendants that was recently removed to this Court, Roberts v. Phams, 5:25-cv-476-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2025) (“Roberts I”). “As part of its general power to administer its docket, a district court may stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative” of one already pending in federal court. Curtis v. Citibank,

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

, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986). “Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in determining whether to stay or dismiss litigation in order to avoid duplicating a proceeding already pending in another federal court.” Id. at 1551-

52. Each of the parties named as defendants in the above-captioned action have also been named as defendants in Roberts I, and the claims raised in this case appear the same as those set forth in Roberts I. In addition, the Court recently directed Plaintiff to recast his complaint in Roberts I so it contains all the related claims he wishes to bring. See generally ECF No. 4 in Roberts I. Thus, if there are any claims that Plaintiff raises in the

above-captioned action that he did not raise in Roberts I, he may include those claims as he is recasting his complaint. In short, because the present action is duplicative of one also pending in this Court, it shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) and his motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 4) are DENIED

as moot. SO ORDERED, this 21st day of November, 2025.

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