Michael R. Jones v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL R. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary of
Agriculture; United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16262
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01590-KJM-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael R. Jones appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his
employment action as duplicative. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for an abuse of discretion, Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487
FILED
DEC 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones’ action as
duplicative of his claims in Jones v. Forest Service, No. 2:11-cv-2972-GEB-CMK,
because the claims, relief sought, and parties are the same. See Adams, 487 F.3d at
688-94 (listing the factors for determining whether claims are duplicative,
explaining that two events arise out of the same nucleus of facts if they are related
and can be conveniently tried together, and noting the district court’s broad
discretion in deciding how to dispose of a later-filed, duplicative action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’ motions for
reconsideration because Jones failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist.
No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
Jones’ motion for corrections, filed on September 18, 2014, and his motion
to consolidate this appeal with appeal nos. 14-16599 and 14-16875, filed on
October 8, 2015, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
13-16262 2

-- 2 of 2 --