Bryan Edwin Ransom v. D. Ortiz;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYAN EDWIN RANSOM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. ORTIZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16970
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00617-OWW-
GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bryan Edwin Ransom, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as duplicative.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
FILED
MAY 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16970 2
discretion a district court’s decision to dismiss an action as duplicative, Adams v.
Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), and we reverse and
remand.
Dismissal of claim 1 in Ransom’s action as duplicative of his claim in
Ransom v. Scribner, No. 1:06-cv-00208-LJO-DLB, was an abuse of discretion
because the claims do not arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts,
involved different defendants, occurred more than 4 years apart, and are not,
therefore, duplicative. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. Morever, while claims 2-9 in
Ransom’s action are the same as those raised in Ransom v. Johnson, No. 1:05-cv-
00086-OWW-GSA, they are not duplicative because the claims in Johnson had
previously been dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. See
Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (duplicative actions are “two separate actions involving the
same subject matter at the same time in the same court[.]” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition.
Ransom’s motion for judicial notice is denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --