Mandate — Alvarado v. CUIAB (Ninth Circuit)

Summary

The Ninth Circuit's mandate and unpublished memorandum in Lance Delon Alvarado v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and California Employment Development Department, No. 24-2049, docketed 04/01/26 as Document 20 in district court case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK in the Eastern District of California. The mandate states that the court's judgment, entered November 18, 2025, takes effect under Rule 41(a). In the memorandum, a panel of Circuit Judges Schroeder, Rawlinson and Nguyen affirms the dismissal of Alvarado's pro se suit against state agencies arising from the denial of pandemic unemployment assistance benefits. The panel holds that he failed to allege facts stating any plausible claim, that several claims were legally frivolous, and it denies all pending motions.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
 
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 
 
LANCE DELON ALVARADO, 
                    Plaintiff - Appellant, 
  v. 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD and 
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT 
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 
                    Defendants - Appellees. 
No. 24-2049 
D.C. No. 
2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK 
Eastern District of California, 
Sacramento 
MANDATE 
 
The judgment of this Court, entered November 18, 2025, takes effect this 
date. 
This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to 
Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
 
 
FOR THE COURT: 
MOLLY C. DWYER 
CLERK OF COURT 
 
FILED 
 
APR 1 2026 
 
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 
Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK     Document 20     Filed 04/01/26     Page 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 20     Filed 04/01/26     Page 2 of 4

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 20     Filed 04/01/26     Page 3 of 4

 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
24-2049 
 
All pending motions and requests are denied. 
 
AFFIRMED. 
Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK     Document 20     Filed 04/01/26     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.caed.439404.20.0.pdf

Size

279,827 bytes

SHA-256

94d91dd1e6447c13f3d922a7f6238af5874ea3e7cb5d5f72888e16d87b76c784

Our copy

gov.uscourts.caed.439404.20.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)