Ramos v. Singleton

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 16 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JONATHON ANGEL RAMOS, No. 25-1435 D.C. No. 8:25-cv-00254-SPG-SSC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* ELIZABETH SINGLETON; GLENN COLEMAN; TANYA DEGRATE; CITY OF SAN DIEGO; SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Sherilyn Peace Garnett, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 15, 2025** Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. * 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).  Jonathan Angel Ramos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing as frivolous Ramos’s action because the complaint contained fanciful factual allegations and lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of a frivolous complaint filed in forma pauperis); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (explaining that a complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” and “[the] term ‘frivolous’ . . . embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”). We reject as unsupported by the record Ramos’s contention that he was denied due process. All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 25-1435