*1 Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Mazen Arakji appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law employment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal of an *2 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(i). Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Arakji’s action as frivolous because his damages request of $155 billion was unsupported by Arakji’s claims. See Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16587

[*] 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).