Case Name: Keith L. NASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elizabeth TIAPULA, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-02
Citations: 304 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 07-35040
Parties: Keith L. NASH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Elizabeth TIAPULA, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Keith L. NASH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Elizabeth TIAPULA, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-35040.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
Keith L. Nash, Airway Heights, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Amanda M. Migchelbrink, Esq., Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's motion for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Keith L. Nash, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants Waddington and Tiapula because Nash failed to show that he suffered actual injury. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415-16, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002) (explaining that to demonstrate actual injury for the purposes of an access to courts claim, "the underlying cause of action and its lost remedy must be addressed by allegations in the complaint sufficient to give fair notice to a defendant" and must be "described well enough to apply the 'nonfrivolous' test and show that the 'arguable' nature of the underlying claim is more than hope."); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53 & n. 3, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (explaining that a denial of access claim must identify a nonfri voulous, arguable underlying cause of action).
Nash's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.