Lance Delon Alvarado v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board — E.D. Cal., No. 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK

Case summary

Lance Delon Alvarado brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK, against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Employment Development Department. The Ninth Circuit describes it as alleging federal and state law claims against state agencies arising from the denial of pandemic unemployment assistance benefits. The district court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the action, and judgment was entered on March 12, 2024. Alvarado appealed pro se. In an unpublished memorandum of November 18, 2025 the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that he failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim and that several claims were legally frivolous, and denied all pending motions. The mandate issued April 1, 2026.

Case at a glance

What did the district court do?

An order of February 16, 2024 granted the request to proceed in forma pauperis and issued findings and recommendations to dismiss; that page yields no extracted text. The plaintiff filed an objection on February 29, 2024. An order adopting the findings and recommendations was filed on March 12, 2024, and judgment in a civil case was entered the same day, stating that judgment is entered in accordance with the court's order filed on that date.

What did the Ninth Circuit decide?

In a memorandum filed November 18, 2025, marked not for publication and decided without oral argument, the court affirmed. It stated that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, reviewed de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and for abuse of discretion a dismissal as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and held that the district court properly dismissed the action because the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim and several of his claims were legally frivolous. It did not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, and denied all pending motions.

What does the page show about the program at issue?

The Ninth Circuit memorandum states that the action arose from the denial of pandemic unemployment assistance benefits. The notice of appeal filed March 25, 2024 is titled as a notice of appeal with a constitutional question of "case in controversy" and a statement regarding the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program, and names the Board and the California Employment Development Department as defendants. The mandate of April 1, 2026 states that the court's judgment of November 18, 2025 takes effect that date under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.