Case ID: f-appx_377/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Deshawn MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTINEZ, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 07-16587.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 21, 2010.
    Deshawn Malone, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Constance L. Picciano, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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.

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”).

Malone’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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