BRIAN PHILLIPS V. SALT RIVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, No. 13-16158 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 04 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN G. PHILLIPS, No. 13-16158 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00798-ROS v. MEMORANDUM* SALT RIVER POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Brian G. Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of an allegedly illegal seizure of his vehicle and personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for * 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). an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a later-filed 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 (2008). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Phillips’s action as duplicative of an earlier-filed action, Phillips v. Salt River Police Dep’t, et al., No. 2:13-cv-00758-DGC, because the causes of action, relief sought, and parties are the same in both actions. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (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 privities to the action, are the same”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Phillips’s request for extension of time to file his First Amended Complaint because he did not demonstrate good cause. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and discussing the requirements for an extension of time under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)). AFFIRMED. 2 13-16158

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.