Ronald Porter v. B. Penn

MEMORANDUM

Ronald L. Porter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment action against the Navy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.2008). We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to dismiss a duplicative action. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684 , 688 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Porter’s claims that were duplicative of his claims in his other pending actions. See id. (“Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

After dismissing Porter’s duplica-tive claims, the district court properly dismissed Porter’s action as moot because the court could not grant any relief on Porter’s remaining claims. See Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.2003) (a case is moot if there is no longer a possibility that the litigant can obtain…