PHILYAW v. JANSEEN PHAR INC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER SHAWN 	:
PHILYAW, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
V. 	:
: 	NO: 5:25-cv-00545-MTT-ALS
JANSEEN PHAR INC, 	:
:
Respondent 	:
_________________________________:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Christopher Shawn Philyaw, an inmate currently held in Central State
Hospital in Milledgeville, Georgia, has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint.
ECF No. 1. 	In this complaint, Plaintiff is raising claims related to his 2017 arrest. 	See
id. at 4-5. 	On review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff is raising these
same claims in another pending case, Philyaw v. Doe, Case No. 5:25-cv-00401-CAR-
CHW. 	The defendants that appear to be included in this case are also named in Plaintiff’s
pending case.1
“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.
1It is not entirely clear what defendants Plaintiff intended to name in this case. 	In the caption on the first
page, he wrote “State of Georgia,” but then marked through that and wrote, “see attached.” 	ECF No. 1 at
1. 	Similarly, in the space provided to name the defendants, Plaintiff wrote but then marked through
“Janseen Pharm Inc.” 	Id. at 2. 	The attachment to the complaint does not specifically indicate who he
intended to name as defendants, but regardless, both the State of Georgia and “Jansheen Pharmaceutical
Inc.” are included as defendants in Plaintiff’s recast complaint in Philyaw v. Doe, Case No. 5:25-cv-00401-
CAR-CHW.
Case 5:25-cv-00545-MTT-ALS Document 4 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (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.” 	IA. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986).
Because the complaint in this case is raising the same issues as those in the pending
case and names the same defendants, this case is duplicative of Plaintiff’s pending case.
Therefore, this case is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the pending
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. 	See Curtis,
226 F.3d at 138.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of December, 2025.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00545-MTT-ALS Document 4 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 2