Geoffrey Lawson v. Bernard Warner

MEMORANDUM

Geoffrey Robert Lawson, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §. 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (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)(b)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lawson’s access-to-courts claim because Lawson failed to allege that he suffered an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (an access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

Although the proposed second amended complaint was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule, the allegations in that complaint do not cure the deficiencies in Lawson’s access-to-courts claim. See id.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and…