DARRYL PUGH V. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT, ET AL, No. 21-16984 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DARRYL PUGH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-16984 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-06723-CRB v. MEMORANDUM* L. ANDERSON, Sergeant; RYAN KIMBER, Officer, #1682; VASQUEZ, Officer, #2021; TAYLOR, Officer, #2195; CONSTANCIO, Officer, #2012; CORSO, Officer, #2348; ALVEREZ, Officer; LUCHRICH, Doctor; LEO, Nurse; ROY, Nurse; SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Darryl Pugh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his * 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). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unreasonable search and excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal of an 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 (2008). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Pugh’s action as duplicative because it is based on the same factual allegations as those in Pugh v. Santa Clara County Corr. Dep’t, No. 00-cv-01391-VRW. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 688-89 (explaining that in determining whether an action is duplicative, courts examine “whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privities to the action, are the same”), abrogated on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that duplicative complaints can be dismissed as “abusive” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). Pugh’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-16984

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.