MICHAEL JONES V. THOMAS VILSACK, No. 13-16262 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 3 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL R. JONES, No. 13-16262 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01590-KJMCMK v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Michael R. Jones appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his employment 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 * 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). F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones’ action as duplicative of his claims in Jones v. Forest Service, No. 2:11-cv-2972-GEB-CMK, because the claims, relief sought, and parties are the same. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 688-94 (listing the factors for determining whether claims are duplicative, explaining that two events arise out of the same nucleus of facts if they are related and can be conveniently tried together, and noting the district court’s broad discretion in deciding how to dispose of a later-filed, duplicative action). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’ motions for reconsideration because Jones failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). Jones’ motion for corrections, filed on September 18, 2014, and his motion to consolidate this appeal with appeal nos. 14-16599 and 14-16875, filed on October 8, 2015, are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 13-16262

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.