Opinion
23-2842
12-26-2024
PETER S. CHOW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted December 17, 2024 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00258-SLG-KFR Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
BEFORE: WALLACE, GRABER, AND BUMATAY, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Peter S. Chow appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's 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 Chow's action because Chow 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)).
Contrary to Chow's contention, the district court was not required to issue summons following Chow's submission of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
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 are denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).