Case ID: f-appx_649/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John SHAW, aka John Hsia, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andre CHANG, Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-15173.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed May 3, 2016.
    John Shaw, Canoga Park, CA, pro se. .
    Aryn Paige Harris, Meghan Feronie Loisel, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW 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

John Shaw a.k.a John Hsia, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was denied access to the courts-while he was incarcerated. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1094 n. 3 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shaw failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s actions caused the dismissal of Shaw’s federal habeas action or otherwise impaired Shaw’s ability to pursue federal habeas relief. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

Because we affirm on the merits, we do not reach the district court’s alternate basis for granting summary judgment that Shaw did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 988, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009).

Shaw’s pending motions and requests are denied.

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