
    Geoffrey Robert LAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernard WARNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-35577
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 04, 2016
    Geoffrey Robert Lawson, AHCC—Air-way Heights Corrections Center, ■ Airway Heights, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Marta DeLeon, Assistant Attorney General, John C. Dittman, Assistant Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Geoffrey Robert Lawson, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §. 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lawson’s access-to-courts claim because Lawson failed to allege that he suffered an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (an access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

Although the proposed second amended complaint was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule, the allegations in that complaint do not cure the deficiencies in Lawson’s access-to-courts claim. See id.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     