N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LORENZO FOSSELM AN, AKA Lore n z o Fosse lm an, Jr., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. R . HIDALGO, C orre c tiona l Se rge ant a t W a sc o State Prison; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16088 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-00575-AW IM JS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Lore nz o Fosse lm an a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his c ivil rights ac tion a lle ging de fe nda nts dep rive d him of his le ga l doc um e nts a

nd de nie d him

a c c e ss to theprison’ s la

wlibra ry . W e 

# F IL ED MAR 20 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Re snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1915A); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii)). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Fosse lm an’ s a c c e ss-to-c o urts c la im s be c a use Fosse lm an fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic i e nt to show tha t he suffe re d a

n a c tua l injury

a s a re sult of a

ny de fe nda nt’ s c onduc t. Se e Silv a v . Di Vittorio , 658 F.3d 1090, 1102-04 (9th C ir. 2011) (re quiring fa c tua l a lle gations showing a c tua l injury in orde r to sta

te a First Am e ndm e nt a c c e ss-to-c o urts c la im ); se e also Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (while fa c tua l a lle g ations m

ust be
a c c e pte d a s true , le ga l c onc lusions a re not e ntitle d to a

n a ssum ption of truth); He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th C ir. 2010) (a lthough pro se ple a d ings
are t o be libe ra l ly

c onstrue d, a

pla intiff m

ust pre se nt fa c tua l a lle g ations suffic ie nt to sta te a pla usible c la im for re lie f). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Fosse l m an furthe r le ave to a m e nd a fte r his first a

m e nde d c om

pla int fa ile d to c ure the de fic ie nc ie s. Se e Me t zle r Inv . GMBH v . C

orinthian C

olls., Inc
. , 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th C ir. 2008) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wand noting a distric t c ourt’ s “ disc re tion to deny le ave to a m e nd is pa

rtic ula rly broa d whe re pla intiff ha s pre viously am e n de d the
2 1 4
- 1 6 0 8 8c om

pla i nt” (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt a l so did not a buse its disc re tion in de c l ining to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r Fosse lm an’ s sta te la wc l a im s a fte r dism issing his fe de ra l c l a i m s. Se e Parra v
. Pac ifiC areof Ariz. Inc
. , 715 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th C ir. 2013) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re v ie w); se ealso C

a rne g ie -Me llon Univ . v . C

ohill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (whe re a ll fe de ra l c la im s a

re e lim inate d be fore tria l,
c ourts ge ne ra lly

should de c line to e xe rc i se supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r re m a ining sta

te la w c la im s). W e re je c t Fosse lm an’ s c onte ntions tha t the distric t

c ourt fa ile d to c onside r his a lle gations of re ta lia

t ory m otive s a

nd ra c e -ba s e d loc kdowns a nd e rre d in de ny ing Fosse lm an’ s re que s t for judic ia l notic e . AFFIRM E D.

3 1 4
- 1 6 0 8 8