Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George W. SHUFELT, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda DAVIS, in her official & individual capacity, ISP’s Litigation Coordinator; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-55474.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
    George W. Shufelt, III, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Jill Vander Borght, William N. Frank, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner George W. Shufelt, III, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-to-courts and retaliation claims. We review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shufelt’s access-to-courts claims because Shufelt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered actual injury as a result of prison officials’ alleged conduct. 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); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n. 1 (9th Cir.2008) (an inmate’s failure to show that a nonfrivolous legal claim has been frustrated is fatal to his access-to-courts claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shufelt’s retaliation claims because Shufelt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether prison officials’ alleged actions served legitimate penological goals or whether those actions would have chilled an inmate of ordinary firmness. See Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269 (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995) (plaintiff must show that allegedly retaliatory action did not advance legitimate correctional goals).

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