NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA A. GREGORY, No. 15-55665
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01016-WQH-
JMA
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Patricia A. Gregory appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-
to-courts claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
*
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).
341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gregory’s access-to-court claim
stemming from her direct criminal appeal and habeas petition because Gregory
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she suffered actual injury as a result of
defendants’ conduct or policies. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 354-55
(1996) (setting forth actual injury requirement); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (setting forth requirements for municipal
liability).
The district court properly dismissed Gregory’s access-to-courts claim
stemming from the State Bar decision against her because Gregory has no
constitutional right of access to the courts to litigate an unrelated civil claim. See
Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th Cir.
2003) (explaining that “a prisoner has no constitutional right of access to the courts
to litigate an unrelated civil claim”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-55665