Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0567-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Faron E. LOVELACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robin SANDY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35782
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 24, 2017
    Faron E. Lovelace, Pro Se
    
      Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit-Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Idaho state prisoner Faron E. Lovelace appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 162 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lovelace’s action because Lovelace failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (complaint must offer more than “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted)); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury).

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

Lovelace’s October 18, 2016 motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief received on October 18, 2016.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.