Dontay D. Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his constitutional right of access to the courts by denying him adequate access to the law library during prison lock-down periods. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. 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. See Letvis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171
holding that there is no abstract freestanding right to a law library and a prisoner must demonstrate that his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim were hindered recognizing that inmates have no freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance holding that prisoner did not have right to access law library because he had courtappointed counsel holding that during a postriot lockdown refusal of access to main law library is constitutional as long as access to basic law library for initial legal research is permitted holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole