FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL ANGELO LENA, No. 15-16553
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01121-JAM-
CKD
v.
C. DAVIS, Law Librarian; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Angelo Lena 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 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 Lena’s action because Lena failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants hindered his efforts to pursue his
legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-349, 351 (1996) (to state an
access-to-courts claim, a prisoner must show “actual injury,” or that the alleged
deprivations “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lena’s complaint
without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to
amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lena’s contentions regarding
defendants’ alleged default.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16553