CLARENCE LEONARD HEARNS, Jr. v. Andrew Whisnand; Jbarba; Sfleming

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE LEONARD HEARNS, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANDREW WHISNAND; J BARBA; S
FLEMING,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15138
D.C. No.1:20-cv-00313-JLT-BAK
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15138
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 of 2 --