
    Angel Ortiz DIAMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56036
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed November 1, 2017
    
      Angel Ortiz Diamond, Pro Se
    Paul L. Winnemore, Los Angeles City-Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Angel Ortiz Diamond appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion dismissal of an action as duplicative. 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, 904, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Diamond’s action against the City of Los Angeles because the instant action is duplicative of Diamond’s earlier action against the City of Los Angeles in the same district court. See id. at 688-89 (explaining that an action is duplicative if “the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties ... to the action are the same” and setting forth criteria for the “transaction test” to determine whether the causes of action are the same (citations omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Diamond’s request to consolidate appeals, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     