Opinion
No. 15-35577
08-04-2016
GEOFFREY ROBERT LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BERNARD WARNER; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05100-RBL MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Geoffrey Robert Lawson, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (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 Lawson's access-to-courts claim because Lawson failed to allege that he suffered an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 (1996) (an access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants' conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).
Although the proposed second amended complaint was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule, the allegations in that complaint do not cure the deficiencies in Lawson's access-to-courts claim. See id.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.