NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN RAY MILLER, No. 20-17348
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00234-DAD-JDP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ALBERT NAJERA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Steven Ray Miller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and
state law that occurred while he was a pretrial detainee. We review for an abuse of
*
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).
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 did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Miller’s action as
duplicative of his earlier-filed action, Miller v. Najera, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01077-
AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), because the causes of action and relief sought are the same
in both actions, and the parties are the same or in privity with each other. See
Adams, 487 F.3d at 688-89 (explaining that in determining whether a later-filed
action is duplicative, this court examines “whether the causes of action and relief
sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same”); see also
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 322 F.3d 1064,
1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if
there is substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient
commonality of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Miller leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that a district court may dismiss without leave to amend
when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-17348