Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION REECE SHOUP, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:25-cv-2963-WFJ-SPF DEPUTY W. INGERSOLL, et al. ,
Defendants. / ORDER
Reece Shoup, a Florida prisoner, initiated this action by filing a pro se civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Doc. 1), and an affidavit of indigency, (Doc. 2). Mr. Shoup alleges that in September 2018, he took a shower at the Hernando County Detention Center and applied a “new soap product” to his body. (Doc. 1 at 9). Soon after, he “felt a painful burning sensation in [his] eyes and face” and yelled, “This is not soap.” ( Id. at 10). Mr. Shoup allegedly suffered “chemical[] burn[s]” to his face and eyes. ( Id. ) Moreover, until his transfer to a Florida state prison in October 2021, jail officials allegedly failed to provide proper treatment for the injuries he sustained in the shower. ( Id. at 10-12). Based on these allegations, Mr. Shoup sues Sheriff Alvin Nienhuis and several jail officials, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by (1) “providing a corrosive product for hygienic use” and (2) “neglecting reasonable medical care or treatment.” ( Id. at 7-9, 12).
After careful review, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court concludes that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because it is duplicative of an earlier action. “[A] plaintiff’s duplicative complaint is an abuse of the judicial process and is properly dismissed without prejudice as malicious under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act].” Daker v. Ward , 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021). A complaint is duplicative if it “aris[es] from the same series of events and alleg[es] many of the same facts as an earlier suit.” Bailey v. Johnson , 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). “Courts have summarily dismissed actions as . . . malicious where the complaints merely repeat[] pending or previously litigated claims, even if the parties and claims in the two . . . suits are not precisely the same.” Daker v. Bryson , No. 5:15-cv-88-CAR-CHW, 2017 WL 11427081, at *4 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 29, 2017) (collecting cases), adopted by 2018 WL 9598914 (M.D. Ga. July 19, 2018); see also Sencial v. Lopinto , No. 23-cv-3351, 2024 WL 776440, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 26, 2024) (“The fact that the prior cases may have involved different defendants or that new claims are now asserted does not affect the maliciousness of a successive action.”).
In September 2022, Mr. Shoup filed a civil action in the Fifth Judicial Circuit that raised the same allegations as the present complaint. Shoup v. Hernando Cnty. Detention Center , No. 22-CA-954, Complaint (Fla. 5th Jud. Cir. Ct.). [1] In the earlier action, Mr. Shoup sued the Hernando County Detention Center, seeking $250,000 in damages for the injuries he sustained during the September 2018 shower incident. Id. at 1-3. He alleged that jail officials’ “negligent issuance of a non-hygienic soap product” caused “undue pain and suffer[ing],” and that their failure to provide adequate medical care reflected “deliberate indifference.” Id. at 5. In June 2023, the state court dismissed the complaint “with prejudice” because Mr. Shoup failed to provide the Hernando County Detention Center with “proper and timely notice of his claim.” Shoup v. Hernando Cnty. Detention Center , No. 22-CA-954, Order Dismissing Complaint at 1-2 (Fla. 5th Jud. Cir. Ct.).
Thus, the present action is duplicative of the earlier action because they “aris[e] from the same series of events” and concern “many of the same facts.” Bailey , 846 F.2d at 1021. “The fact that the prior case[] may have involved [a] different defendant[] or that new claims are now asserted does not affect the maliciousness of [the] successive action.” Sencial , 2024 WL 776440, at *2; see also Bailey , 846 F.2d at 1021 (affirming dismissal of complaint as duplicative because it “repeat[ed] the same factual allegations . . . asserted in [the] earlier case, although [plaintiff] successively sued different defendants”). Moreover, Mr. Shoup “brought his duplicative complaint in this case knowingly” because the complaint discloses the earlier state-court action. Daker , 999 F.3d at 1310. Indeed, Mr. Shoup acknowledges that the earlier action concerned the jail’s alleged “negligence” in failing to (1) prevent “chemical burns to [his] face” and (2) “properly treat [his] injury.” (Doc. 1 at 5).
Accordingly, Mr. Shoup’s civil-rights complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment against Mr. Shoup, terminate any pending motions, and CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 31, 2025.
NOTES
[1] For Mr. Shoup’s reference, the Court has attached copies of the relevant state-court documents.