Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0757-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Cecil THORNTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George A. NEOTTI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-55108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 24, 2012.
    William Cecil Thornton, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner William Cecil Thornton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A or 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Thornton’s access to courts claim because he failed to allege any facts to establish that he has been hindered from pursuing a nonfrivolous claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415-16, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002) (underlying claim must be “described well enough to apply the ‘nonfrivolous’ test”); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 353, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (to state an access to courts claim, inmate must “demonstrate that a nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded”).

The district court properly dismissed Thornton’s claims concerning the handling of his grievances because he has not stated a legitimate claim of entitlement to grievance procedures. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988) (order).

Thornton’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.