Idaho state prisoner Faron E. Lovelace appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under *2 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 Lovelace’s action because Lovelace failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (complaint must offer more than “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted)); Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury).

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).

Lovelace’s October 18, 2016 motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief received on October 18, 2016.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-35782

[*] 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).