FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICKARD DENNIS ANDERSON, No. 11-17232
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-03184-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CHRISTINE SY, Director; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rickard Dennis Anderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s action as frivolous because
the complaint contains indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions. See
Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 1989) (a complaint may be
dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact), superseded by
statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.
2000); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (the
district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where it has
afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17232