NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY R. ANDOE, No. 18-35527
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00287-DCN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KEVIN KEMPH, Director; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Johnny R. Andoe, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and
access-to-courts claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington,
*
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).
152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Andoe’s retaliation claim because
Andoe failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant acted with a
retaliatory motive. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-58 (9th Cir. 2005)
(setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt
v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807-08 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timing of adverse actions
alone is insufficient to establish retaliatory intent).
The district court properly dismissed Andoe’s access-to-courts claim
because Andoe failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered actual
injury to his ability to bring a non-frivolous legal claim. See Jones v. Blanas, 393
F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements of access-to-courts claim); see
also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-54 (1996) (discussing the actual injury
requirement for an access-to-courts claim).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-35527