CALDWELL v. BARR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

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 district court's dismissal of an action as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (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, 112 S.Ct. 1728 (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.