FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONNIE STERLING LACY, No. 15-16930
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00639-TLN-
KJN
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