Devon
Devon v. Roe
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Alan Devon appeals pro se the district court’s judgment *148 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his First, Sixth, Fifth, Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights by losing his legal materials. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Johnson v. State of California, 207 F.3d 650, 653 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Devon’s claim that the loss of his legal materials violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts fails because he was able to file his writs and thus cannot show an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 354 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); see also Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that once habeas petition reaches the court the right of access is satisfied). Devon’s Sixth Amendment claim that defendants violated his right to counsel lacks merit because the Sixth Amendment only applies in criminal trial proceedings. See Martinez v. Court of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152, 160-61 , 120 S.Ct. 684 , 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000).