Opinion
21-16984
11-25-2022
DARRYL PUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. ANDERSON, Sergeant; RYAN KIMBER, Officer, #1682; VASQUEZ, Officer, #2021; TAYLOR, Officer, #2195; CONSTANCIO, Officer, #2012; CORSO, Officer, #2348; ALVEREZ, Officer; LUCHRICH, Doctor; LEO, Nurse; ROY, Nurse; SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 15, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D.C. No. 3:21-cv-06723-CRB Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Darryl Pugh appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unreasonable search and excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal of an action as duplicative. Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pugh's action as duplicative because it is based on the same factual allegations as those in Pugh v. Santa Clara County Corr. Dep't, No. 00-cv-01391-VRW. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 688-89 (explaining that in determining whether an action is duplicative, courts examine "whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privities to the action, are the same"), abrogated on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that duplicative complaints can be dismissed as "abusive" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)).
Pugh's motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).