Opinion
21-15156
01-26-2022
RANDY MICHAEL KI'HEEM MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN PARTY, Inmate Legal Support Specialist S/N B1300; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 19, 2022. [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01418-JAT-CDB
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Pretrial detainee Randy Michael Ki'Heem Moore appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-courts claim. We 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 Moore's access-to-courts claim because Moore failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that he suffered an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 (1996) (elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement); see also 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).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).