William Lee Bell v. County of Maricopa;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM LEE BELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF MARICOPA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16600
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04809-MTL-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner William Lee Bell 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, 447 (9th Cir.
* 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
MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16600
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bell’s action because Bell 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --