Robert Rose v. State of Montana , 422 F. App'x 631 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 18 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ROBERT L. ROSE,                                   No. 10-35048
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 6:09-cv-00043-DWM-
    RKS
    v.
    STATE OF MONTANA; et al.,                         MEMORANDUM *
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 8, 2011 **
    Before:        FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Robert L. Rose, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that prison
    officials violated his constitutional right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447
    (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Rose’s access-to-courts claims because
    either they pertained to state law tort causes of action, or Rose failed to allege facts
    showing how defendants’ acts hindered his efforts to pursue challenges to his
    criminal conviction or prison conditions. See Lewis v. Casey, 
    518 U.S. 343
    , 354-
    55 (1996) (the right to access the courts is limited to cases in which prisoners
    challenge their convictions or prison conditions); Phillips v. Hust, 
    588 F.3d 652
    ,
    655 (9th Cir. 2009) (to state an access-to-courts claim, “an inmate must show that
    official acts or omissions hindered his efforts to pursue a [non-frivolous] legal
    claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint
    without leave to amend because the defects of Rose’s complaint are not curable.
    See Lopez v. Smith, 
    203 F.3d 1122
    , 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (a district court
    need not grant leave to amend if the defects of the complaint cannot be cured).
    Rose’s remaining contentions, including those concerning a preliminary
    injunction, are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      10-35048
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-35048

Citation Numbers: 422 F. App'x 631

Judges: Bybee, Farris, O'Scannlain

Filed Date: 3/18/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023