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:T47a,MEMORANDUM Andy D. Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was a pretrial detainee when they opened incoming mail from elected officials and government agencies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez’s action because Rodriguez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was deprived of a federal or constitutional right. See Mann v. Adams, 846 F.2d 589, 590-91 (9th Cir.1988) (per cu-riam) (no constitutional violation where mail from public agencies, public officials, and news media was opened outside inmate’s presence). Rodriguez’s motion for appointment of counsel,.set forth in his opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition, is riot appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ac,

MEMORANDUM

Andy D. Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was a pretrial detainee when they opened incoming mail from elected officials and government agencies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez’s action because Rodriguez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was deprived of a federal or constitutional right. See Mann v. Adams, 846 F.2d 589, 590-91 (9th Cir.1988) (per cu-riam) (no constitutional violation where mail from public agencies, public officials, and news media was opened outside inmate’s presence).

Rodriguez’s motion for appointment of counsel,.set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

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