Rianda

McKinney v. Rianda

Good Law
262 F. App'x 785
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 28, 2007No. 06-55196California313 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Alonzo McKinney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.l998) (order). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). *786 King v. Russell, 968 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing McKinney’s action for failure to state a claim where McKinney’s complaint failed to allege facts showing he suffered an injury when he was denied access to his legal papers during his transfer to a different facility. See Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.1989) (“An ‘actual injury’ consists of some specific ‘instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to the courts.’ ”). Moreover, McKinney was provided with an adequate post-deprivation remedy as his property was returned after his inmate grievance was granted. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.