¶2 California state prisoner Michael James Hicks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging access-to-courts claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and for an abuse of discretion its decision to do so without leave to amend, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm.
¶3 The district court properly dismissed Hicks’ complaint because Hicks failed plausibly to allege actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation, such as inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim).
¶4 The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate where the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts).
¶5 AFFIRMED.