Case ID: f-appx_168/html/0775-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William E. FEIL, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. C. SULLIVAN; et al., Defendants— Appellees.
    No. 05-35851.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
    
    Decided Feb. 22, 2006.
    William E. Feil, Aberdeen, WA, pro se.
    Ruth Ellen Ammons, Esq., Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William E. Feil, 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 defendants violated his First Amendment rights by enforcing prison mail regulations. 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.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claim that defendants interfered with his access to courts. Feil cannot show he suffered an actual injury, because the record shows that he was able to present the merits of his habeas claim to the state court. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-54, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

Moreover, summary judgment was appropriate on Feil’s claim that defendants refused to allow Feil to receive mail bearing no return address, because the evidence shows that defendants acted pursuant to a regulation passed in the legitimate penological interest of maintaining security. See Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.