FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMILIANO LOPEZ, No. 13-17492
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00107-LJO-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES A. YATES, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Emiliano Lopez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under
*
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).
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)). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116,
1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Lopez’s access-to-courts claim was proper because Lopez
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury as a result
of any defendants’ alleged inaction. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348 (1996)
(requiring factual allegations showing actual injury in order to state an access-to-
courts claim); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010)
(although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present
factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s claim regarding the denial of
meaningful review of his grievances because there is no constitutional right to
receive a particular type of prison grievance review. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334
F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement
to a specific prison grievance procedure.”); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-17492