Court Opinion

ID: 4110930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-12-23 22:01:11.756936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:11.295973
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 23 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLARENCE LEONARD HEARNS, Jr.,                    No. 15-17304

              Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 5:14-cv-04482-LHK

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
A. HEDGPETH; JENSEN,

              Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                      Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before:      WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

      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

that defendants violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts. We

      *
             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).
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). 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 (1996) (an access-

to-courts claim requires a plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual

injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     15-17304