Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0294-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William WOMACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John or Jane DOE, Correctional Officers; Frank Hauschildt, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-35772.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 8, 2015.
    William Womack, Walla Walla, WA, pro se.
    John E. Justice, I, Esquire, Law, Lyman, Daniel, Kamerrer & Bogdanovich P.S., Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Womack, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when officials denied him access to the courts during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Womack failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions caused Womack to suffer an actual injury, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that the defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim), or as to whether Womack had a constitutional right to library access in order to contest a civil suit unrelated to a prison sentence or condition of confinement, see Silva v. DiVittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing “affirmative assistance” and “interference” access-to-courts claims).

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