PATRICIA BAUERLE V. PATRICIA BAUERLE, No. 17-15544 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATRICIA BAUERLE, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-15544 D.C. No. 4:16-cv-00614-RCC v. MEMORANDUM* PATRICIA BAUERLE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Patricia Bauerle 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. * 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). 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 (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 2 17-15544 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. 3 17-15544
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
