T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T SE RGI O A LVAREZ , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. FRA N CI SCO J A CQ U EZ a n dT. D EN N I S, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees, a nd RO BERT H O REL an dRI CH A RD KI R KL AN D, D efen d an t s. N o. 09- 17516 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 6 - c v - 0 5 6 3 1 - SBA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S aundr aB . A rm s tr ong, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e bruary15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED FEB 24 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 17516 2 S er gi o A l vare z, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en t s d i sm i ssi n g h i s 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 act i o n al l eg i n g d en i al o f access to th e c o u rts a n ddu e p r o c e s s v io la tio n s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . N el so n v. H eiss , 271 F . 3d 891, 893 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( d is m is s a l f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im ) ; Y an ezv. U

ni ted States , 63 F . 3d 870, 872 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) (

j u d g me n to n th e p l e a d i n g s ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr ant e d de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

orj udgm e nton the pl ea di ng s on A l vare z’ s deni alof ac ce ss t o the court s c l ai m because A l vare z f ai l ed to a lle g e th a t h e s u f

f e r e da c tu a l in

ju ry . See L ew is v . Casey , 518 U . S . 343, 348- 49 ( 1996) ( de f

i ni ng a c tua l i nj urya s “ a c tua l pr e j udi c e w i th r e s pe c tt o c ont e m pl a t e d or e x is tin g litig a tio n , s u c h a s th e in ab ilityto m e e t af ilin g d e a d lin e o rto p r e s e n t a cl ai m ” ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y d i sm i ssedA l v arez’s du e p ro cess cl ai m b ecau se de f e nda nt s ’ f

a i l ur e t o r e m ove e rr one ous i nf orm a t i on f

r om A l var e z ’ s f

i l e di d not

“ i m po se [] atypi ca l and si gn i fi canthardshi p o n [A l vare z] i n rel at i on t o the ordi nary i nci dent s of pri son l i fe . ” Sa nd i n v. C on ner , 5 1 5 U .S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 ( 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g A lv ar e z ’s m o tio n to f ile a n a m e n d e dc o m p la in t b e c au s e a m e n d m e n t w o u ldh a v e b e e n f u tile . See V entress v. Japa n A i rl i nes , 60 3 F . 3d 67 6, 68 0 (9th C i r. 20 10 ).09- 17516 3 T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i dn o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n b y d en yi n g A l v arez’s requ est f o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l b e c au s e h e f

a ile dto s h o w e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s tan c e s . Se e A ldabe v . A ldabe , 6 1 6 F .2 d1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A l vare z’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A F F I R M E D .