NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLIVIA ARMOUR; CHANEL E. No. 24-2726 ARMOUR, D.C. No. 3:23-cv-02074-JES-VET Plaintiffs - Appellants,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

FIDELITY SELECT TECHNOLOGY

PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY CONVERTIBLE

SECURITIES FUND; FIDELITY NEW

MILLENIUM FUND; FIDELITY

GROWTH & INCOME FUND; FIDELITY

GOVERNMENT INCOME

FUND; FIDELITY PURITAN

FUND; FIDELITY GNMA; FIDELITY

SELECT TECH HARDWARE

PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY TREND

FUND; FIDELITY INVESTMENT

MONEY MARKET TAX EXEMPT

PORTFOLIO CLASS I; FIDELITY

SELECT ENERGY

PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY EQUITY

INCOME FUND; FIDELITY GROWTH

COMPANY FUND; FIDELITY SELECT

SEMICONDUCTOR

PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY SELECT

CONSUMER STAPLES

PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY ADVISOR

GLOBAL CAPITAL APPRECIATION

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FUND CLASS I; FIDELITY SELECT

CHEMICALS PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY

ADVISOR INCOME FUND-CLASS I,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California James E. Simmons, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Olivia Armour appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her action alleging federal and state law claims related to a variety of Fidelity

accounts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Watison v.

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Armour’s action because Armour

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-2726 We reject as unsupported by the record Armour’s allegations of judicial bias

and her contentions concerning the summons.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions or requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-2726