Case Name: Patricia BAUERLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia BAUERLE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-21
Citations: 703 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 17-15544
Parties: Patricia BAUERLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia BAUERLE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
Patricia BAUERLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia BAUERLE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15544
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 21, 2017
Patricia Bauerle, Pro Se
Sidney F. Wolitzky, Law Offices of Sidney F. Wolitzky, Tueson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Gregory A. Smith
Christopher M. Pastore, Esquire, Ogle-tree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee International Business Machines Corporation
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Patricia B.auerle appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim, Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bauerle's action as frivolous because Bauerle's claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (a "frivolous" claim lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact; the "term 'frivolous' . embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation"); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim without notice or an opportunity to respond where plaintiff cannot possibly win relief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in . dismissing Bauerle's third amended complaint without leave to amend because further 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 dismissal without leave to amend is' proper when amendment would be futile).
We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Bauerle's motion to file a supplemental reply brief (Docket Entry No. 21) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No.' 22.
International Business Machines Corporation's request for attorney's fees and costs, set forth in its answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a separate motion for attorney's fees and bill of costs.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.