LEAH CALDWELL V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-17066 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEAH S. CALDWELL, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-17066 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01357-TLN-AC 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

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.