NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE DELON ALVARADO, No. 24-2049 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD; CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 12, 2025**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Lance Delon Alvarado appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims against state agencies

* 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). arising from the denial of pandemic unemployment assistance benefits. 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)(ii) and for an abuse of discretion a

dismissal as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alvarado’s action because Alvarado

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim, and because several of

Alvarado’s claims were legally frivolous. 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)); Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified

Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth the elements of a

procedural due process claim); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989) (explaining that a complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis

either in law or in fact”).

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).

2 24-2049 All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-2049