Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0875-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant EVANS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-55431.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 8, 2010.
    Kenneth Evans, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    Lena Afary, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Evans’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Evans, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts and due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knappenberger v. City of Phoenix, 566 F.3d 936, 939 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Evans failed to show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendants’ delay in processing his legal mail and in providing him with a requested address. 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).

Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Evans’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

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