`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`FILED
`
`
`OCT 18 2023
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`No. 22-35667
`
`
`D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05189-BHS
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`SAMUEL VALDEZ,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
`STATE OF WASHINGTON; YVETTE
`STUBBS, Legal Liaison; GRUBB,
`Counselor (A Pod),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Washington
`Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted October 10, 2023**
`
`S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
`
`Before:
`
`
`
`Washington state prisoner Samuel Valdez appeals pro se from the district
`
`court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of his
`
`constitutional right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`
`
`*
` 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`12(b)(6), and we can affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v.
`
`Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
`
`
`
`Dismissal of Valdez’s action was proper because Valdez failed to state an
`
`access-to-courts claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355 (1996) (explaining
`
`that the constitution requires that inmates be able to attack their sentences and
`
`challenge conditions of confinement, but that “[i]mpairment of any other litigating
`
`capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences
`
`of conviction and incarceration”); Simmons v. Sacramento County Super. Ct., 318
`
`F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that where a prisoner was a
`
`defendant in a civil damages suit, the Sheriff’s failure to transport him for trial did
`
`not state a claim for violation of constitutional right to access the courts).
`
`
`
`The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 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 leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be
`
`futile).
`
`We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters
`
`not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
`
`v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
`
`
`
`2
`
`22-35667
`
`
`
`
`
`Valdez’s motion to strike the answering brief (Docket Entry No. 18) and
`
`motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 19) are denied.
`
`
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`3
`
`22-35667
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
