FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LERAJJAREAN RA-O-KEL-LY, No. 10-35837
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00645-MHW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL JOHNSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted November 21, 2011 ***
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Lerajjarean Ra-o-kel-ly appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Appellant 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).
of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Appellant’s access-to-courts claim
because Appellant failed to allege any facts to establish that he has been hindered
from pursuing a nonfrivolous claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53
(1996) (to state an access-to-courts claim, inmate must “demonstrate that a
nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded”).
The district court also properly dismissed Appellant’s retaliation claims
because Appellant failed to allege facts that would establish that defendants took
adverse action against him because he exercised his constitutional rights. See Rhodes
v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim).
Appellant’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellant’s “Motion for Ruling on Opening Brief” is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-35837