Staples v. USA, 1:17-cv-00328

Staples is an inmate in BOP custody who filed a pro se complaint against federal officers under Bivens and FTCA.
He challenges disciplinary convictions imposed while housed at USP-Pollock, Louisiana, including July 2010 assault and related sanctions.
He also challenges February 2011 incident reports for medication misuse and count violations, with corresponding sanctions.
A later, unspecified date allegedly involved a refused-order incident report resulting in commissary loss.
Several disciplinary convictions were expunged after Staples served the sanctions; the expungements are noted in the record.
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found it duplicative of a prior suit, 1:16-cv-1284, addressing the same events and claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim under § 1915A.	Staples contends his claims have merit and should proceed.	The complaint lacks plausible legal or factual basis and is duplicative.	Frivolous/insufficient for failure to state a claim.
Whether the action is duplicative of a pending suit.	Staples asserts distinct grounds for relief in separate filings.	The claims arise from the same events as 1:16-cv-1284 and are duplicative.	Duplicative; recommended dismissal without prejudice to the pending case.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (frivolousness standard for § 1915A screening)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claims)
Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1988) (discusses dismissal when claims arise from same events)