NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEENAN G. WILKINS, AKA Nerrah Brown,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 16232
D.C. No. 1:16

- cv - 01858

- DAD

BAM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019 **
Before: McKEOWN , BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Keenan G. Wilkins , AKA Nerrah Brown , appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 16232

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We may affir m on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058

- 59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Wilkins’ s access - to

- courts claim because Wilkins failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant caused an actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343,
349

- 53 (1996) (setting forth elements of an access

- to

- courts clai m and actual injury requirement). The district court properly dismissed Wilkins’ s equal protection claim because Wilkins failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based upon me mbership in a protected class. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab ., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013) ( setting forth requirements of an equal protection claim ) ; see also Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief)

. D enial of Wilkins’ s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief was proper
because there was no claim upon wh ich to request relief or remedies. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan , 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when3 18

- 16232

underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial of preliminary injunctive relief would have no practical consequences, and t he issue is therefore moot); Stock W

est , Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation , 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (in order “[t]o obtain declaratory relief in federal court, there must be an independent basis for jurisdiction”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.