# Brown v. Valenzuela

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 29, 2009 · 324 F. App'x 686

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8462538

## Case

- **Full name:** Thornell L. BROWN v. M. VALENZUELA
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 29, 2009
- **Citations:** 324 F. App'x 686
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Bea, Gould, Graber
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8462538

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

MEMORANDUM **
Thornell L. Brown, 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 to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Brown failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendant’s conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8462538. Public record. Not legal advice.