Opinion
2:24-cv-00258-JAW
07-19-2024
DUSTIN BURNHAM, Plaintiff v. PORTLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY et al., Defendants
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW
Karen Frink Wolf, United States Magistrate Judge.
One day after his prior complaint against the Portland Housing Authority and the Maine State Housing Authority was dismissed for failing to state a claim, see Burnham v. Portland Hous. Auth., No. 2:24-cv-00196-JAW, 2024 WL 3045212 (D. Me. June 18, 2024) (rec. dec.), aff'd, 2024 WL 3440308 (D. Me. July 16, 2024), Dustin Burnham initiated this duplicative action against the same defendants, see Complaint (ECF No. 1).
I granted Burnham's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 6, so his new complaint is before me for preliminary review, see 19 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Burnham's new complaint does nothing to remedy the shortcomings that precipitated the dismissal of his previous complaint-if anything, Burnham offers even fewer pertinent details than before. See Complaint at 4-9. Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DISMISS his new complaint for same reasons it dismissed his previous complaint. See Burnham, 2024 WL 3045212, at *1. Given the duplicative nature of this matter and Burnham's failure to engage with the Court's reasons for dismissing his previous complaint, I also recommend that the Court WARN him that his ability to file new actions in this Court may be restricted if he continues to file meritless complaints. See Cok v. Fam. Ct. of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 34-35 (1st Cir. 1993) (noting that courts may impose filing restrictions on abusive litigants after adequate notice).