Daniel Acedo v. Francis Abalos;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL ACEDO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FRANCIS ABALOS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56534
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02532-H-BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017 **
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Daniel Acedo 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
* 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
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-56534
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Acedo’s action because Acedo failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury due to defendants’
alleged conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-349, 351 (1996) (to state
an access-to-courts claim, a prisoner must allege “actual injury”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Acedo’s Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion because Acedo failed to establish any basis
for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for
relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)).
Acedo’s request for judicial notice (Dkt. Entry No. 14-2) is denied as
unnecessary to the extent that it requests judicial notice of documents filed in the
district court. To the extent Acedo requests judicial notice of documents that were
not filed in the district court, we do not consider evidence introduced for the first
time on appeal. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th
Cir. 1988).
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 --