DEVONTE HARRIS V. I. VELO-LOPEZ, No. 16-17036 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEVONTE BERNARD HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-17036 D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01629-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* I. VELO-LOPEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted May 24, 2017*** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Devonte Bernard Harris, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Harris 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). access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. Dismissal of Harris’s action was proper because Harris failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 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). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Harris further leave to amend. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 2 16-17036

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.