JOHNSON v. MOORE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
JUSTIN JOSEPH, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
: 	NO. 4:25-CV-00491-CDL-AGH
VS. 	:
:
SAKINIA MOORE, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
________________________________ 	:
ORDER
Pro se Petitioner Justin Joseph, an inmate at the Muscogee County Jail in
Columbus, Georgia, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 	ECF No. 1. 	Petitioner
is challenging court proceedings that were held in the Superior Court of Muscogee County,
Georgia concerning a criminal charge of Robbery by Sudden Snatching and revocation of
his probation. 	Id. 	A review of court records reveals that on the same day that the present
habeas action was docketed, Petitioner filed two other habeas petitions challenging these
same state court proceedings, Robbery charge, and probation revocation. 	Compare id.
with ECF No. 1 in 4:25-cv-00485-CDL-AGH, Joseph v. Countryman and ECF No. 1 in
4:25-cv-00492-CDL-AGH, Joseph v. Hunter. 	Petitioner also filed a fourth federal civil
action utilizing a standard form for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints that raised the same
claims as his three habeas petitions that can be construed as yet another habeas action
because he requests release from custody. 	See ECF No. 1 in 4:25-cv-00493-CDL-AGH,
Joseph v. Johnson.
Case 4:25-cv-00491-CDL-AGH Document 3 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 3

2
“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, 226 F.3d 133,
138 (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,
793 	F.2d 	1541, 	1551 	(11th 	Cir. 	1986). 	Because 	the 	petition 	in 	this 	action 	is
indistinguishable from Petitioner’s other habeas actions that are pending in this Court and
because each petition seeks similar relief from the same incarceration, the present action is
DISMISSED as duplicative. 	Petitioner is ORDERED not to file any other pleadings
under this civil action number 4:25-cv-00491-CDL-AGH because this case is now closed.
Lastly, Petitioner 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, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (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.” 	Id. 	Accordingly, 	“district 	courts 	are
authorized by the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to restrict access to vexatious and
abusive litigants.” 	Id. 	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.
Having now been advised that he is verging on abusing the judicial process of this
Court, Petitioner is ORDERED not to initiate repetitive civil actions raising the same
Case 4:25-cv-00491-CDL-AGH Document 3 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 3

3
claims as he has done here nor should he file duplicative motions in a pending civil action,
or he could face sanctions as described above.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of December, 2025.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:25-cv-00491-CDL-AGH Document 3 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 3