Court Opinion

ID: 9388575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 23:00:25.519838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.049352
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WYATT N. REDFOX,                                No. 21-35863

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
BRANDON JONES, Superintendent;
SANDRA THOMAS, Assistant
Superintendent; SAMUAL MEDLOCK,
Standard's Officer; JANE DOE, "CO
Hodges", Corrections Officer,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Alaska
                   Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Wyatt N. Redfox, who is incarcerated at Anchorage Correctional Complex

West, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1983 action alleging access-to-courts claims. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We

affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Redfox’s action because Redfox failed

to allege facts sufficient to show actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (explaining that an access-to-courts

claim requires a plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused an actual injury

to a nonfrivolous legal claim); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415

(2002) (explaining that in an access-to-courts claim, “the underlying cause of

action, whether anticipated or lost, is an element that must be described in the

complaint”).

      Redfox’s motion to appoint counsel on appeal (Docket Entry No. 8) is

denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    21-35863