Angel Diamond v. City of Los Angeles
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rickey Louis Alford v. Kenneth C. Byrne (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2022)
- Zachary Johnson v. County of Kern (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2022)
- Hayes v. Rojas (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2021)
- Graciani v. Providence Health & Services (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 2019)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Angel Ortiz Diamond appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion 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, 904, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Diamond’s action against the City of Los Angeles because the instant action is duplicative of Diamond’s earlier action against the City of Los Angeles in the same district court. See id. at 688-89 (explaining that an action is duplicative if “the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties ... to the action are the same” and setting forth criteria for the “transaction test” to determine whether the causes of action are the same (citations omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Diamond’s request to consolidate appeals, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.