Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert HOLMES, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank DREESEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15468
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 23, 2016
    Robert Holmes, III, Las Vegas, NV, Pro Se.
    Adam Paul Laxalt, Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Nevada Office of the Attorney General, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEpLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Holmes, III, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-to-courts and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Holmes’s access-to-courts claims because Holmes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered prejudice to a direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a habeas petition, or a challenge to his conditions of confinement as a result of defendants’ alleged conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 843, 348-855, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth actual injury requirement).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Holmes’s retaliation claim because Holmes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Smith took an adverse action against Holmes because of his protected conduct. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); see also Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[M]ere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”).

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