Case Name: Alvaro QUEZADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. FISHER, Captain; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-29
Citations: 576 F. App'x 708
Docket Number: No. 12-16824
Parties: Alvaro QUEZADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. FISHER, Captain; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 708–708

Head Matter:
Alvaro QUEZADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. FISHER, Captain; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16824.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 29, 2014.
Alvaro Quezada, Blythe, CA, pro se.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
California state prisoner Alvaro Quezada 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, Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.2007), and we reverse and remand.
Dismissal of Quezada's action as duplica-tive of his action in Quezada v. Hedgpeth, No. 1-08-cv-01404-FRZ (E.D.Cal filed Sept. 19, 2008) was an abuse of discretion because the action does not involve the same parties. See id. at 688-89 (setting forth the standard for determining when a case is duplicative); see also United States v. Bhatia, 545 F.3d 757, 759-60 (9th Cir.2008) (describing the circumstances in which a nonparty can be bound by a prior decision). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.