Beck v. State of California

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 24-1520
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUSTIN BECK, No. 24-1520 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00164-AGS-DDL Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; SUZANNE GRANDT; STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; RUBEN DURAN; ELI DAVID MORGENSTERN; KENNETH J. CATANZARITE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Andrew George Schopler, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Justin Beck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

* 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). action alleging federal law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 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 Beck’s action as

duplicative of his earlier-filed action, Beck v. Catanzarite Law Corp., et al., No.

3:22-cv-01616-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), because the two actions involve the same

causes of action and the same parties. See Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit

Union Int’l, 30 F.4th 879, 886 (9th Cir. 2022) (setting forth requirements for

determining whether a second action is duplicative of the first).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to

amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of

review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would

be futile); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th

Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is

particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Beck’s contention that the district

2 24-1520 court was biased against him.

The motion (Docket Entry No. 21) for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-1520