NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER S. CHOW, No. 23-2842 D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00258-SLG-KFR Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2024**

Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Peter S. Chow appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

* 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). 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Chow’s action because Chow failed to

allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See 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)).

Contrary to Chow’s contention, the district court was not required to issue

summons following Chow’s submission of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-2842