22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T462,MEMORANDUM Kenneth Evans, 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 and due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Knappenberger v. City of Phoenix, 566 F.3d 936, 939 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because Evans failed to show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendants’ delay in processing his legal mail and in providing him with a requested address. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (explaining that “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Evans’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T499,

MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Evans, 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 and due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Knappenberger v. City of Phoenix, 566 F.3d 936, 939 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Evans failed to show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendants’ delay in processing his legal mail and in providing him with a requested address. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (explaining that “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Evans’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.