William Owens v. Kenneth Braithwaite

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM C. OWENS, Nos. 19-55795
19-55830
Plaintiff-Appellant, 19-55831
v. D.C. Nos. 3:18-cv-01852-JAH-JLB
3:18-cv-01579-JAH-JLB
KENNETH BRAITHWAITE*, Secretary of 3:19-cv-00012-JAH-JLB
the Department of the Navy,
Defendant-Appellee. MEMORANDUM**
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020***
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
William C. Owens appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments
dismissing his employment actions alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction
*
Kenneth Braithwaite has been substituted for his predecessor, Richard
V. Spencer, as Secretary of the Department of the Navy under Fed. R. App. P.
43(c)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
***
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal on the
basis of the doctrine against claim-splitting. 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 reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Owens’s actions as duplicative of another action
Owens filed, Owens v. Spencer, No. 3:18-cv-01796-JAH-JLB. However, these
actions are not duplicative because the causes of actions are not the same, as the
actions do not arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts and do not
involve substantially the same evidence. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (in
determining whether actions are 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”; setting forth the criteria for ascertaining whether causes of action are
the same, the most important of which is “whether the two suits arise out of the
same transactional nucleus of facts”). We reverse the judgments and remand for
further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 19-55795/19-55830/19-55831