UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS E. COTTLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 00-6367
MICHAEL BELL; JACK V. TURLINGTON;
DANIEL L. STIENEKE, R. H. FUTRELL;
LIEUTENANT WALKER,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
(CA-99-835-5-CT-BO)

Submitted: July 31, 2000

Decided: August 14, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas E. Cottle, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas E. Cottle appeals the district court's order dismissing his
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint as frivolous pursu-
ant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 2000). Cottle argues that
the district court erred when finding his current complaint, Cottle v.
Bell, No. 5:99-CT-835-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Dec. 15, 1999), duplica-
tive of another pending § 1983 complaint of his, Cottle v. Lee, No.
5:99-CT-471-F (E.D.N.C. filed July 23, 1999). We agree.

A district court shall dismiss an action at any time if it determines
that the action is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(i) (West Supp. 2000). Because district courts are not
required to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits, they may dis-
miss such suits as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e). See Aziz v. Bur-
rows, 

, 1158 (8th Cir. 1992); cf. McWilliams v.
Colorado, 

, 574 (10th Cir. 1997). Generally, a lawsuit
is duplicative of another one if the parties, issues and available relief
do not significantly differ between the two. See I.A. Durbin, Inc. v.
Jefferson Nat'l Bank, 

, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986).

We find that the complaint filed in Cottle v. Bell is not duplicative
of the one filed in Cottle v. Lee. Initially, each complaint challenges
Cottle's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at different correc-
tional institutions: Central Prison in Raleigh, North Carolina (Cottle
v. Lee) and Pender Correctional Center in Burgaw, North Carolina
(Cottle v. Bell). More importantly, each complaint names completely
different defendants, specifically, the warden and other named correc-
tional officers at these respective penal institutions. Because the com-
plaints name different defendants, we find that they are not
duplicative of each other, even though they both raise similar issues
and seek similar remedies. Thus, the district court erred by dismissing
Cottle v. Bell, No. 5:99-CT-835-BO, as duplicative of Lee.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand so
that Cottle v. Bell, No. 5:99-CT-835-BO, may be reinstated on the
docket. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                     2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    3