Ryan

DISCUSSION

15 The Court must screen and “dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state 16 a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). A complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 18 true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 19 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12(b)(6). 21 The Court previously concluded that Ryan’s contract and quasi-contract claims were 22 “sufficient to pass the ‘low threshold for proceeding past the screening stage’ and state a 23 breach-of-contract claim.” (ECF 15, at (quoting Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of 24 Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2017)).) But the Court dismissed his fraud-based 25 claims for failing to appropriately allege the “who” and “when” of the fraud and for failing 26 to set out plausible allegations of “fraudulent intent.” (Id. at 3–4.) In his latest complaint, 27 Ryan has addressed each: explaining “who” was engaged in the alleged fraud, setting out 28 “when” they made the allegedly…