NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEAH S. CALDWELL, No. 19-17066
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01357-TLN-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 5, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Leah S. Caldwell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging, among other violations, claims under the Civil
Rights Act of 1866 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
*
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).
district court’s dismissal of an action as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Caldwell’s
action as frivolous because the action lacked an arguable basis either in law or in
fact. See id. at 31-33 (discussing the meaning of “frivolousness”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Caldwell’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may dismiss
without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).
We reject as without merit Caldwell’s contentions that the district court
should have disqualified itself, or permitted discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
Caldwell’s motion to update the appellees is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-17066