Case Name: Daryl K. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NELSON, et al., Defendants-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-21
Citations: 384 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 09-15802
Parties: Daryl K. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NELSON, et al., Defendants-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 684–685

Head Matter:
Daryl K. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NELSON, et al., Defendants-Appellee.
No. 09-15802.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 21, 2010.
Daryl K. Howard, lone, CA, pro se.
Monica N. Anderson, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Daryl K. Howard, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Howard's denial of access to courts claim because he failed to allege facts indicating that defendant impeded his right to file a habeas petition. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access to courts claim requires actual injury to plaintiffs non-frivolous legal claim caused by defendants' conduct). Howard's habeas petition was time-barred before he was placed in administrative segregation and deprived of any legal materials.
Dismissal without leave to amend was proper because it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).
We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.