NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLIVIA ARMOUR; CHANEL E. No. 24-2726 ARMOUR, D.C. No. 3:23-cv-02074-JES-VET Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v.

FIDELITY SELECT TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES FUND; FIDELITY NEW MILLENIUM FUND; FIDELITY GROWTH & INCOME FUND; FIDELITY GOVERNMENT INCOME FUND; FIDELITY PURITAN FUND; FIDELITY GNMA; FIDELITY SELECT TECH HARDWARE PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY TREND FUND; FIDELITY INVESTMENT MONEY MARKET TAX EXEMPT PORTFOLIO CLASS I; FIDELITY SELECT ENERGY PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY EQUITY INCOME FUND; FIDELITY GROWTH COMPANY FUND; FIDELITY SELECT SEMICONDUCTOR PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY SELECT CONSUMER STAPLES PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY ADVISOR GLOBAL CAPITAL APPRECIATION

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. FUND CLASS I; FIDELITY SELECT CHEMICALS PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY ADVISOR INCOME FUND-CLASS I,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California James E. Simmons, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Olivia Armour appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her action alleging federal and state law claims related to a variety of Fidelity

accounts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

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. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Armour’s action because Armour

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)).

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-2726 We reject as unsupported by the record Armour’s allegations of judicial bias

and her contentions concerning the summons.

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 or requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-2726