Ivan Kilgore v. Arno Nappi

MEMORANDUM

Ivan Kilgore, a California state prisoner, 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 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kilgore’s action because Kilgore failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendants’ conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); see also Silva v. DiVittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-04 (9th Cir.2011) (discussing “affirmative assistance” and “interference” access-to-courts claims).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the second amended complaint because further amendment would have been futile. See Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir.2008) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that…