Clarence Hearns, Jr. v. A. Hedgpeth , 672 F. App'x 717 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE LEONARD HEARNS, Jr., No. 15-17304
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-04482-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
A. HEDGPETH; JENSEN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Leonard Hearns, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se
from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
that defendants violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hearns’s action because Hearns failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 352-53 (1996) (an access-
to-courts claim requires a plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual
injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-17304