CLARENCE HEARNS, JR. V. ANDREW WHISNAND, ET AL, No. 22-15138 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLARENCE LEONARD HEARNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 22-15138 D.C. No.1:20-cv-00313-JLT-BAK MEMORANDUM* ANDREW WHISNAND; J BARBA; S FLEMING, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2023** Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Clarence Leonard Hearns, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims for the denial of access to the courts and interference with mail. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, * 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). 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hearns’s action because Hearns failed to allege facts sufficient to allege a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-54 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an access-to-courts claim and explaining that the right to access the courts does not include the right “to litigate effectively once in court” (emphasis omitted)); Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff, 41 F.4th 1158, 1169 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must show that a state actor caused them a specific constitutional injury). Hearns’s motion for the case to be assigned to a panel (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 22-15138

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.