ANGEL DIAMOND V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 16-56036 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 1 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL ORTIZ DIAMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-56036 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-07064-JAK-AJW v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Angel Ortiz Diamond appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion dismissal of an action as duplicative. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 * 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). 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 by dismissing Diamond’s action against the City of Los Angeles because the instant action is duplicative of Diamond’s earlier action against the City of Los Angeles in the same district court. See id. at 688-89 (explaining that an action is duplicative if “the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties . . . to the action are the same” and setting forth criteria for the “transaction test” to determine whether the causes of action are the same (citations omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Diamond’s request to consolidate appeals, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-56036

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.