NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALISON LORRAINE HATHEWAY, No. 20-16126 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05610-DLR v. MEMORANDUM* AILEEN DEFEO, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Alison Lorraine Hatheway appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

* 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).

Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hatheway’s action sua sponte after giving Hathaway “notice of its sua sponte intention to invoke Rule 12(b)(6) and afford[ing her] an opportunity to . . . submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion[.]” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-16126