Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clyde Kenneth DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NAVORRO, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-15611.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 17, 2010.
    Clyde Kenneth Davis, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Timothy J. Mcdonough, Deputy Attorney General, Dept, of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Clyde Kenneth Davis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants interfered with his access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Davis’s action because the amended complaint failed to allege facts suggesting that he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendants’ alleged actions. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (explaining that “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir.2004) (“Where the plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint ... the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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