
    Gerald Dean De CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. PANIZZA, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-16683
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 06, 2016
    Gerald Dean de Cruz, Pro Se
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, 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 Gerald Dean de Cruz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment access-to-courts claim and a Sixth Amendment claim relating to his confidential legal mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Cruz’s access-to-courts claim because Cruz failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury from defendant’s alleged conduct. 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 allege “actual injury”).

However, the district court failed to consider whether the amended complaint states a Sixth Amendment claim on the basis that defendant opened and “presumably” read confidential correspondence between Cruz and his criminal defense attorneys outside of Cruz’s presence. See Nordstrom, 762 F.3d at 911 (“Allegations that prison officials read [an inmate’s] legal mail ... and that [the inmate’s] right to private consultation with counsel has been chilled state a Sixth Amendment claim”). Therefore, we vacate the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings on this claim only. We express no opinion as to whether the amended complaint states a Sixth Amendment claim.

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