Case Name: Clarence Leonard HEARNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kelley HARRINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-23
Citations: 672 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 16-15261
Parties: Clarence Leonard HEARNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kelley HARRINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 717–718

Head Matter:
Clarence Leonard HEARNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kelley HARRINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15261
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 23, 2016
Clarence Leonard Hearns, Jr., Pro Se
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Clarence Leonard Hearns, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hearns's action because Hearns failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 352-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (an aceess-to-courts claim requires a plaintiff to show that defendants' conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011) (prisoners have a constitutional right to litigate claims challenging their sentence or conditions of confinement without interference from prison officials), overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED,
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.