Benjamin Freeman v. Charles Ryan;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN FREEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES RYAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15998
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00101-RM-PSOT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and
deliberate indifference claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Barren v. Harrington, 152
* 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
FEB 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15998
F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Freeman’s action as duplicative
because it is based on the same factual allegations as those in Freeman v. State of
Arizona, CV 18-01015-PHX-JAT. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105
n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (duplicative complaints can be dismissed as “abusive” under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Freeman’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
standard of review and grounds for dismissing without leave to amend).
Freeman’s request for a status report is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --