FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IVAN RAY CARTER, Jr., No. 14-15321
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00875-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
VELVA HAMPSON, Senior Librarian at
CSATF,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 10, 2015***
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Ray Carter, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Carter consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Carter’s access-to-courts claims
because Carter failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual
injury as the result of defendant’s conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-
53 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct
caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); see also Christopher v.
Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 414-16 (2002) (discussing elements of a backward-looking
access-to-courts claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the
complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Manzarek v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that denial of leave to amend is improper unless
it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15321