Jenghiz K. Stewart v. JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff at Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENGHIZ K. STEWART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff at Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16160
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02723-GMS-
JZB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Jenghiz K. Stewart appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims
related to the deprivation of legal materials in a county jail. We have jurisdiction
FILED
AUG 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Stewart’s access-to-courts claim
because Stewart failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual
injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 352-53 (1996) (an
access-to-courts claim requires a plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused
actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).
The district court properly dismissed Stewart’s First Amendment retaliation
claim because Stewart failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of
retaliation claim in a correctional context); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42
(9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must
still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
We reject as without merit Stewart’s contention that the district court
improperly denied his motion to compel the release and forwarding of his legal
property.
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.
15-16160 2

-- 2 of 2 --