Summary
affirming dismissal without leave to amend under § 1915(e)(B) where complaint failed to state a claim and amendment would have been futile
Summary of this case from Williams v. DuffyOpinion
No. 11-55785 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00680-CJC-FMO
11-20-2012
MICHAEL JAMES HICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. L. ROWE, in individual capacity and as Senior Librarian in official capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael James Hicks appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-to-courts claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and for an abuse of discretion its decision to do so without leave to amend, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hicks' complaint because Hicks failed plausibly to allege actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation, such as inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate where the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts).
AFFIRMED.