John Gholar v. James Yates

MEMORANDUM

John Ray Gholar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2012) (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)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gholar’s action because Gholar failed to allege sufficient facts to show any actual injury due to the alleged inadequate prison law library access. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-eourts claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

Appellee’s request for judicial notice is granted. See Fed.R.Evid. 201.

AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).