MICHAEL LENA V. C. DAVIS, No. 15-16553 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 26 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL ANGELO LENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-16553 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01121-JAMCKD 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.