ROBERTS v. PHAMS et al

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	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, 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.” I.A.
Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986). 	“Trial courts
Case 5:25-cv-00419-MTT-ALS Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 2

2
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
Case 5:25-cv-00419-MTT-ALS Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 2