Figeroe

MEMORANDUM

Daniel Lawrence Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his right of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of the loss of the Keybo declaration. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim). Specifically, Smith did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the declaration contained “newly discovered evidence” that would allow him to pursue a state habeas action. In re Hardy, 41 Cal.4th 977 , 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 845 , 163 P.3d 853, 872 (2007) (setting forth the requirements for pursuing a habeas action claiming actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence).

We do not consider issues…