Polizziani

MEMORANDUM

Appellant appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against two correctional officers for violating his constitutional right to have access to the courts. Although Appellant alleged in his complaint that his legal mail was not delivered at all, the magistrate judge and district court proceeded under the mistaken impression that there was merely a one-day delay in receipt of the mail.

We review the district court’s judgment dismissing Appellant’s action alleging denial of meaningful access to the courts de novo. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). To succeed on an action for denial of access to the courts, Appellant must allege he suffered a specific, concrete, injury as a result of Appellees’ actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Appellant has failed to do so. However, a pro se litigant “must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is obviously clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t., 839 F.2d 621 , 623 (9th Cir.1988).

The record in this case reflects that Appellant’s attempts to…