Samuel Valdez v. Department of Corrections

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 18, 2023
• Docket: 22-35667
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL VALDEZ, No. 22-35667

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05189-BHS

v. MEMORANDUM* 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**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

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