Way Quoe Long v. Unknown , 649 F. App'x 522 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAY QUOE LONG, a.k.a. Wayson Long, No. 15-15272
a.k.a. Joe Lee Young, a.k.a. Sean Young,
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-
Plaintiff - Appellant, DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNKNOWN, 20 Employees of Federal
Bureau of Prisons USP-Atwater,
California; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Way Quoe Long, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action, brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging
constitutional claims related to the alleged destruction of his legal materials. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Zadrozny
v. Bank of New York Mellon, 720 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Long’s access-to-courts claim because
Long failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury as a
result of any defendant’s conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53
(1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendants’ conduct
caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim). The district court did not err
in denying Long’s motion for summary judgment on this claim. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a) (summary judgment is only proper “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law”); Padfield v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2002)
(setting forth de novo standard of review for denial of summary judgment).
The district court properly dismissed Long’s Sixth Amendment claim
because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is inapplicable in habeas
proceedings. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We
note . . . that the sixth amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus
2 15-15272
actions.”); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth de
novo standard of review for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Long leave to file a
fourth amended complaint because amendment would have been futile. See
Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that a district court may deny leave to amend
where amendment would be futile).
Long’s motion to strike is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15272