Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0779-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sylvester James MAHONE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE REFORMATORY, Defendant, and Carol Grandmontagne, Corrections Captain for the Washington State Reformatory; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-35113.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    Sylvester James Mahone, Monroe, WA, pro se.
    Andrea Vingo, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sylvester James Mahone, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mahone’s access to courts claim because Mahone failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether legal mail rules frustrated his ability to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mahone’s retaliation claim because Mahone failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the allegedly retaliatory conduct was unrelated to legitimate penological goals. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam).

Mahone’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

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