Case Name: Dana L. ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeff KIRKMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-26
Citations: 301 F. App'x 722
Docket Number: No. 07-35558
Parties: Dana L. ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeff KIRKMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 722–723

Head Matter:
Dana L. ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeff KIRKMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-35558.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Nov. 26, 2008.
Dana L. Rose, Boise, ID, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and therefore denies appellant’s request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dana L. Rose appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials interfered with his legal mail. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rose's Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Rose did not demonstrate any ac tual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (explaining that to establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must show that he suffered actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir.1996) (noting that mail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner's lawyer, is not protected legal mail).
Rose's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny all outstanding motions.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.