Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0734-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bryan Edwin RANSOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. ORTIZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16970.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 25, 2012.
    Bryan Edwin Ransom, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bryan Edwin Ransom, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as duplicative. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to dismiss an action as duplicative, Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.2007), and we reverse and remand.

Dismissal of claim 1 in Ransom’s action as duplicative of his claim in Ransom v. Scribner, No. 1:06-cv-00208-LJO-DLB, was an abuse of discretion because the claims do not arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts, involved different defendants, occurred more than 4 years apart, and are not, therefore, duplicative. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. Moreover, while claims 2-9 in Ransom’s action are the same as those raised in Ransom, v. Johnson, No. 1:05-cv-00086-OWW-GSA, they are not duplicative because the claims in Johnson had previously been dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (duplicative actions are “two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

Ransom’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.