Darryl Pugh v. L. ANDERSON, Sergeant

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRYL PUGH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
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.
No. 21-16984
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-06723-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
NOV 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16984
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 of 2 --