Case Name: Billy DRIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTEL, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-07
Citations: 395 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 09-17309
Parties: Billy DRIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTEL, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
Billy DRIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTEL, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-17309.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
Billy Driver, Represa, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
Billy Driver, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Driver's action because he failed to allege facts to state a section 1983 claim, and failed to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies despite detailed directions on multiple occasions on how to do so. See Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.2006) (listing elements of section 1983 claim); see also Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982) (liberal interpretation of a pro se civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled).
We deny Driver's motion for injunctive relief in the form of release from prison as beyond the scope of this appeal. Liberally construing Driver's recent letter as a motion for access to the prison library, we also deny this request because the failure to allege sufficient facts cannot be cured through legal research.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.