RONNIE LACY V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. 15-16930 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 20 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONNIE STERLING LACY, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-16930 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00639-TLNKJN v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ronnie Sterling Lacy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with the district court’s order to file an amended complaint. Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Lacy’s action without prejudice after the magistrate judge provided notice of the inadequacies of Lacy’s complaint, and warned Lacy that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation of dismissal. See id. at 989-90 (“We will not disturb the trial court’s dismissal without a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Lacy’s action on the basis that the instant action is duplicative of an earlier-filed action, Lacy v. Folk, No. 2:14-cv-02770-AC (E.D. Cal.). See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (actions are duplicative where “the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). We do not consider allegations and arguments raised for the first time on 2 15-16930 appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 15-16930

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.