Sprint-Nextel

MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated'ten cases, Rodrick Gordon DeRock appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his actions arising out of an ongoing rental dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)); Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987) (determination that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact). We affirm nine cases, and in case number l:12-cv-00024, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed nine of DeRock’s actions either as frivolous or for failure to state a claim because DeRock alleged unsupported legal conclusions and fanciful factual allegations in his complaints. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (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” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 , 109 S.Ct. 1827 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (under § 1915(e)(2), a…