Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian Darnell EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. D. MCDONALD, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16185
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    Filed September 22, 2016
    Brian Darnell Edwards, Pro Se.
    Diana Esquivel, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Sea Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Brian Darnell Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards’s access-to-courts claim because Edwards failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants caused an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 354-55, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards’s Fourth Amendment claim because prisoners have no Fourth Amendment right of privacy in their cells. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (“Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells”).

We cannot review Edwards’s contentions challenging the district court’s judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of Edwards’s evidence on Edwards’s claims arising from the confiscation of banned books because Edwards has failed to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged errors. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant trial transcripts).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.