by a plaintiff are assumed true under a motion to dismiss, this court need not accept baseless allegations as proof of futility. This court is not “required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.2001) (reviewing motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)). MHC’s bias allegations, at best, produce uncer tainty and uncertainty does equal futility. See Del Monte Dunes, 920 F.2d at 1501. Moreover, “The Supreme [C]ourt has indicated that at least one application must be submitted before the futility exception applies.” Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir.1987); see also Amberhill Props., 814 F.2d at 1341 (<HOLDING>). MHC did not pursue even a single petition for
holding the issue of use can be necessary to the adjudication by the board of adjustment of the underlying request for a variance when the issue is raised in the context of an issue the board of adjustment is required to decide holding failure to seek a rent adjustment before bringing takings action makes a claim of futility wholly speculative holding that plea did not waive claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to seek suppression holding no jurisdiction to review claim that agency failed to properly weigh equities and hardship before denying adjustment of status despite recharacterization as due process claim holding motion to reopen seeking adjustment of status constituted a withdrawal of the request for voluntary departure and the adjustment motion was therefore not barred based on failure to depart within the voluntary departure time allowed