Ervin

MEMORANDUM

Vernon Wayne McNeal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by denying him access to the courts and retaliating against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed McNeal’s access-to-courts claim because McNeal did not allege facts showing that defendants’ loss of his legal materials in 2004 resulted in any actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53, 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 nonfrivolous legal claim). Contrary to McNeal’s contention, the record indicates that the Supreme Court rejected his request for an extension of time to file his petition for certiorari because McNeal failed to attach a copy of the Ninth Circuit order, issued in 2006, denying review of his habeas petition. See Sup.Ct. R. 13.5 (“An application to extend the time to file shall ... identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy…