
    Federico ROSAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. DENNY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15444.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 19, 2016.
    Federico Rosas, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    
      Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, 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 Federico Rosas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-to-courts and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 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)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rosas’s access-to-courts claim because Ro-sas did not allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-52, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (requiring factual allegations showing actual injury in order to state an access-to-courts claim); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

The district court properly dismissed Rosas’s claim regarding the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a “constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003).

We do not consider Rosas’s Eighth Amendment claim because Rosas failed to replead it in his operative complaint.' See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) (claims dismissed with leave to amend are waived if not repled).

We do not consider issues which are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1993).

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