Gerald Vaughn Gwen, named as Gerald V. Gwen v. T. DEGARD, Assistant Deputy Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALD VAUGHN GWEN, named as
Gerald V. Gwen,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
T. DEGARD, Assistant Deputy Warden; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16744
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01294-JAT-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Gerald Vaughn Gwen appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 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).
FILED
NOV 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16744
§ 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), abrogated in part on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880
(2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gwen’s action as
duplicative because it is based on the same factual allegations as those in Gwen v.
Core Civic, et al., 2:21-cv-02150-JAT-JFM. 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”); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir.
1995) (duplicative complaints can be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)).
Although the claims Gwen alleged in this action were dismissed without prejudice
in his prior action, the district court explained in its order dismissing this action
that Gwen could move to amend his complaint in his prior action, which was
proceeding at the time this action was dismissed.
We do not consider Gwen’s contentions regarding the district court’s
dismissal of Gwen’s claims in his prior action because they are outside the scope
of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --