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.