The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-35837•Lerajjarean Ra-O-Kel-Ly v. Michael Johnson;
10-35837Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 23, 2011
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellant consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.**
§ 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LERAJJAREAN RA-O-KEL-LY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL JOHNSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35837
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00645-MHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 21, 2011***
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Lerajjarean Ra-o-kel-ly appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations
FILED
NOV 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-35837 2
of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Appellant’s access-to-courts claim
because Appellant failed to allege any facts to establish that he has been hindered
from pursuing a nonfrivolous claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53
(1996) (to state an access-to-courts claim, inmate must “demonstrate that a
nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded”).
The district court also properly dismissed Appellant’s retaliation claims
because Appellant failed to allege facts that would establish that defendants took
adverse action against him because he exercised his constitutional rights. See Rhodes
v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim).
Appellant’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellant’s “Motion for Ruling on Opening Brief” is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.