22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T440,MEMORANDUM Rickard Dennis Anderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s action as frivolous because the complaint contains indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir.1989) (a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.Bd 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir.1992) (the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where it has afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T46d,

MEMORANDUM

Rickard Dennis Anderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s action as frivolous because the complaint contains indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir.1989) (a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.Bd 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir.1992) (the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where it has afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.