
    Michael Angelo LENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. DAVIS, Law Librarian; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16553
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 26, 2016
    Michael Angelo Lena, Tehachapi, CA, Pro Se.
    Arthur B. Mark, III, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. .
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Angelo Lena appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lena’s action because Lena failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants hindered his efforts to pursue his legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-349, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (to state an access-to-courts claim, a prisoner must show “actual injury,” or that the alleged deprivations “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lena’s complaint without 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 dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

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).

We reject as unsupported by the record Lena’s contentions regarding defendants’ alleged default.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     