Case Name: Lerajjarean RA-O-KEL-LY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael JOHNSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-23
Citations: 459 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 10-35837
Parties: Lerajjarean RA-O-KEL-LY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael JOHNSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Lerajjarean RA-O-KEL-LY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael JOHNSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-35837.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
Filed Nov. 23, 2011.
Lerajjarean Ra-o-kel-ly, Roberts, ID, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lerajjarean Ra-o-kel-ly appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Appellant's access-to-courts claim because Appellant failed to allege any facts to establish that he has been hindered from pursuing a nonfrivolous claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53, 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 also properly dismissed Appellant's retaliation claims because Appellant failed to allege facts that would establish that defendants took adverse action against him because he exercised his constitutional rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (elements of a retaliation claim).
Appellant's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellant's "Motion for Ruling on Opening Brief' is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.