Robert Kroncke v. City of Phoenix

MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Robert Earl Kroncke appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging various constitutional "violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir.2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed all claims against the State of Arizona because it is not subject to suit under § 1983. See Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2002) (to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the violation was committed by a “person” acting under color of state law; a state is not considered a “person” within the meaning of § 1983).

To the extent that Kroncke alleged access-to-court claims in Counts 1, 3, and 5, dismissal was proper because Kroncke failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants violated any ' constitutional right to court access. See Silva, 658 F.3d at 1101-03 (describing requirements of an access-to-court claim). To the…