IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS US. DISTRICT COURT AMARILLO DIVISION NORTHERN aes TEXAS DEONTAE CALDWELL, § TDCJ-CID No. 01903202, § CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, * Pay

V. 2:19-CV-021-Z-BR BRITTNEY MILLER et al., : . Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Before the Court is Plaintiff's civil rights complaint brought pursuant to

against the above-referenced Defendants (ECF No. 3) (“Complaint”), filed January 23, 2019. Plaintiff filed suit pro se while incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (““TDCJ”), Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a repeat filer in this Court, once again makes claims that are difficult to piece together. ECF No. 3 at 4-13. Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit overlap his claims in two other lawsuits in this Court: Case Nos. 2:19-cv-018 and 2:19-cv-019. In those cases, Plaintiff alleged TDCJ staff spread misinformation about Plaintiffand his family over “walkie talkie.” See Caldwell v. Ramirez, No. 2:19-cv-018; Caldwell v. Miller, No. 2:19-cv-019. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff lists

additional TDCJ personnel who he alleges engaged in this behavior and repeats prior claims made in his prior lawsuits. ECF No. 3 at 3-4. LEGAL STANDARD When a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility brings an action with respect to prison conditions under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs,

(Sth Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous,! malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2). The same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C.§ 1997e(c)(1). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos,

, 483 n.4 (Sth Cir. 1991).” ANALYSIS A complaint that duplicates claims asserted in an earlier action may be deemed malicious and subject to summary dismissal. See Brock v. Cockrell, No. 3-03-CV-0340-M,

, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2003. Plaintiff's lawsuit is duplicative of his previous lawsuits identified herein. Consequently, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants should be summarily dismissed as duplicative under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). See also Pitman v. Moore, 980

! A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce,

(Sth Cir. 1993). 2 Green vs. McKaskle,

(Sth Cir. 1986) (“Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Watson questionnaire.”). Dismissals may also be based on adequately identified or authenticated records. Banuelos v. McFarland, 4) F.3d 232, 234 (Sth Cir. 1995).

F.2d 994, 995 (Sth Cir. 1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh,

(Sth Cir. 1989). The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint as frivolous WITH PREJUDICE. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court ORDERS Plaintiff's Complaint filed pursuant to

be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. SO ORDERED. February 1g 2022

MA HEW J. fer TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE