Case Name: Michael R. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-03
Citations: 586 F. App'x 352
Docket Number: No. 13-16262
Parties: Michael R. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 352–352

Head Matter:
Michael R. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16262.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 3, 2014.
Michael R. Jones, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael R. Jones appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his employment action as duplicative. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones' action as du-plicative of his claims in Jones v. Forest Service, No. 2:11-cv-2972-GEB-CMK, because the claims, relief sought, and parties are the same. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 688-94 (listing the factors for determining whether claims are duplicative, explaining that two events arise out of the same nucleus of facts if they are related and can be conveniently tried together, and noting the district court's broad discretion in deciding how to dispose of a later-filed, dupli-cative action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones' motions for reconsideration because Jones failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
Jones' motion for corrections, filed on September 18, 2014, and his motion to consolidate this appeal with appeal nos. 14-16599 and 14-16875, filed on October 8, 2015, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.