BRYAN RANSOM V. D. ORTIZ, No. 11-16970 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 25 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRYAN EDWIN RANSOM, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-16970 D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00617-OWWGBC v. MEMORANDUM * D. ORTIZ; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Bryan Edwin Ransom, a California state prisoner, 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 district court s decision to dismiss an action as duplicative, Adams v. Cal. Dep t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), and we reverse and remand. Dismissal of claim 1 in Ransom s action as duplicative of his claim in Ransom v. Scribner, No. 1:06-cv-00208-LJO-DLB, was an abuse of discretion because the claims do not arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts, involved different defendants, occurred more than 4 years apart, and are not, therefore, duplicative. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. Morever, while claims 2-9 in Ransom s action are the same as those raised in Ransom v. Johnson, No. 1:05-cv00086-OWW-GSA, they are not duplicative because the claims in Johnson had previously been dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (duplicative actions are two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court[.] (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. Ransom s motion for judicial notice is denied. REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 11-16970
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.
