Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

377 F. App'x 621

Malone v. Martinez

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided April 21, 2010

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2010-04-21

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2010

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Jones v. Blanas

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2010-04-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *622 MEMORANDUM

¶2 Deshawn Malone, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant violated his right of access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

¶3 Malone claimed that defendant failed to give him a partially completed complaint and supporting materials that Malone had requested from his personal property. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Malone failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendant’s alleged conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (describing actual injury requirement); Jones, 393 F.3d at 936 (affirming summary judgment on access to courts claim on the ground that plaintiff did not show “injury, such as inability to file a complaint or defend against a charge”).

¶4 Malone’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

¶5 AFFIRMED.

¶6 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/377/fappx/621 · .json · Public domain