context: The district court properly dismissed Hayes' action because the allegations in Hayes' amended complaint demonstrate that, even if his access to the law library was deficient, he did not sustain an actual injury as a result of defendants' conduct.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 886 F.2d 1166, 1171
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that an "actual injury consists of some specific instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to the courts"
citation_a.sentence: See Letvis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (holding that there is no abstract freestanding right to a law library, and a prisoner must demonstrate that his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim were hindered); see also Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that an “actual injury consists of some specific instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to the courts”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that there is no abstract freestanding right to a law library, and a prisoner must demonstrate that his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim were hindered
citation_b.sentence: See Letvis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (holding that there is no abstract freestanding right to a law library, and a prisoner must demonstrate that his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim were hindered); see also Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that an “actual injury consists of some specific instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to the courts”).