GEOFFREY LAWSON V. BERNARD WARNER, No. 15-35577 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 04 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEOFFREY ROBERT LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 15-35577 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05100-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* BERNARD WARNER; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Geoffrey Robert Lawson, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal * 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). under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Lawson’s access-to-courts claim because Lawson failed to allege that he suffered an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 (1996) (an access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim). Although the proposed second amended complaint was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule, the allegations in that complaint do not cure the deficiencies in Lawson’s access-to-courts claim. See id. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-35577

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.