Kenneth Evans v. Lieutenant Evans;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Evans’s
request for oral argument is denied.
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH EVANS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT EVANS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-55431
D.C. No. 2:05-CV-05044-DDP-SS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Evans, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access
FILED
JAN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-55431 2
to the courts and due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Knappenberger v. City of Phoenix, 566 F.3d 936, 939 (9th Cir.
2009). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Evans failed to
show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendants’ delay in processing
his legal mail and in providing him with a requested address. See Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 348 (1996) (explaining that “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with
respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing
deadline or to present a claim”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Evans’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --