NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RANDY MICHAEL KI’HEEM MOORE, No. 21-15156

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01418-JAT-CDB v.

MEMORANDUM* UNKNOWN PARTY, Inmate Legal Support Specialist S/N B1300; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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). 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 21-15156