STEVEN MILLER V. ALBERT NAJERA, No. 20-17348 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN RAY MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-17348 D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00234-DAD-JDP MEMORANDUM* ALBERT NAJERA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Steven Ray Miller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and state law that occurred while he was a pretrial detainee. We review for an abuse of * 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). 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 did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Miller’s action as duplicative of his earlier-filed action, Miller v. Najera, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01077AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), because the causes of action and relief sought are the same in both actions, and the parties are the same or in privity with each other. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 688-89 (explaining that in determining whether a later-filed action is duplicative, this court examines “whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same”); see also Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if there is substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Miller leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may dismiss without leave to amend when amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 2 20-17348
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
