FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DION ANDERSON, No. 15-16720
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00378-AWI-
DLB
v.
M. KIMBRELL; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Dion Anderson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-
courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
*
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).
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s action because Anderson
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered actual injury with respect to
contemplated or existing litigation. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49,
354-55 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing of actual injury, which
means prejudice to direct appeals of criminal convictions, habeas petitions, or
challenges to conditions of confinement); 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); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011)
(requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
We do not consider 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 15-16720