Memorandum — Alvarado v. Cuiab (Ninth Circuit) (E.D. Cal. No. 2:23-cv-03041)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · No. 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK · Doc. 19 · 2025-11-18 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
 
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 
 
LANCE DELON ALVARADO, 
                    Plaintiff - Appellant, 
  v. 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
INSURANCE APPEALS 
BOARD; CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT 
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 
                    Defendants - Appellees. 
No. 24-2049 
D.C. No. 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK 
 
MEMORANDUM* 
 
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). 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 18 2025 
 
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 
Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK     Document 19     Filed 11/18/25     Page 1 of 3

 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
24-2049 
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).  
 
 
Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK     Document 19     Filed 11/18/25     Page 2 of 3

 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
24-2049 
 
All pending motions and requests are denied. 
 
AFFIRMED. 
Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK     Document 19     Filed 11/18/25     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.caed.439404.19.0.pdf

Size

192,655 bytes

SHA-256

dae2c93d22a97e54b5a88d75b811d17f070e78f499e5197a6d6f60c00da44b69

Our copy

gov.uscourts.caed.439404.19.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)