Case Name: Ivan Ray CARTER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Velva HAMPSON, Senior Librarian at CSATF, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-20
Citations: 599 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 14-15321
Parties: Ivan Ray CARTER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Velva HAMPSON, Senior Librarian at CSATF, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
Ivan Ray CARTER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Velva HAMPSON, Senior Librarian at CSATF, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-15321.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 20, 2015.
Ivan Ray Carter, Jr., Imperial, CA, pro se.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Ivan Ray Carter, Jr., 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 the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Carter's access-to-courts claims because Carter failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury as the result of defendant's conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendant's conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 414-16, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002) (discussing elements of a backward-looking access-to-courts claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Manzarek v. St Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir.2008) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that denial of leave to amend is improper unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.