Michael Lena v. C. Davis

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Angelo Lena appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lena’s action because Lena failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants hindered his efforts to pursue his legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-349, 351 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (to state an access-to-courts claim, a prisoner must show “actual injury,” or that the alleged deprivations “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lena’s complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first…