Samuel Valdez v. Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL VALDEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
STATE OF WASHINGTON; YVETTE
STUBBS, Legal Liaison; GRUBB,
Counselor (A Pod),
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-35667
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05189-BHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Samuel Valdez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of his
constitutional right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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).
FILED
OCT 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-35667
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and we can affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v.
Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Valdez’s action was proper because Valdez failed to state an
access-to-courts claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355 (1996) (explaining
that the constitution requires that inmates be able to attack their sentences and
challenge conditions of confinement, but that “[i]mpairment of any other litigating
capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences
of conviction and incarceration”); Simmons v. Sacramento County Super. Ct., 318
F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that where a prisoner was a
defendant in a civil damages suit, the Sheriff’s failure to transport him for trial did
not state a claim for violation of constitutional right to access the courts).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend
because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be
futile).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-35667
Valdez’s motion to strike the answering brief (Docket Entry No. 18) and
motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 19) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --