MEMORANDUM **

Dana L. Rose appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials interfered with his legal mail. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rose’s Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Rose did not demonstrate any ac*723tual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (explaining that to establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must show that he suffered actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that mail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not protected legal mail).

Rose’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny all outstanding motions.

AFFIRMED.