Randy Michael Ki’heem Moore v. UNKNOWN PARTY, Inmate Legal Support Specialist S/N B1300;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANDY MICHAEL KI’HEEM MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY, Inmate Legal Support
Specialist S/N B1300; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15156
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01418-JAT-CDB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Pretrial detainee Randy Michael Ki’Heem Moore appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an
access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,
* 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).
FILED
JAN 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15156
447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Moore’s access-to-courts claim
because Moore failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that he suffered an
actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 (1996) (elements of an
access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally,
a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --