*1 Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Clarence Leonard Hearns, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts. We *2 have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hearns’s action because Hearns failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 352-53 (1996) (an access- to-courts claim requires a plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-17304

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. * * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).