T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OS É AB E L F I E R R O, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. R IC H A R D S O N , G ri evance Co ordi nat or; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15914 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 5 8 0 - D CB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d C . B ury , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. José A bel F i erro, an A ri zona st at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s s um m ary j ud gm enti n h i s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng const i tut i on al vi ol at i on s ari si ng fr om the l oss of abo x o f l egal do cum ent s w hen h e w as 

# FI LED OC T 06 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 15914 2 tr a n s f e rr e d b e tw e e n p r is o n s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , B ro dh ei m v. Cry , 5 8 4 F . 3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 7 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) , a n dwe a f f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton F i e rr o’ s c l a i m f or d e n ia l o f a c c e s s to th e c o u rts b e c au s e F ie rr o f a ile dto r a is e atr iab le is s u e a s to w h e th e rh e s u f

f e r e d a n a c tu a l in

ju ry . See L ew is v . Casey , 518 U . S . 343, 351- 53 & n .3 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( to s h o w a n a c tu a l in ju ry , ap r is o n e rm u s t d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is e f f o rts to pu rs ue a non fr i vo l ou s l egal cl ai m w er e hi nd er ed). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton F i e rr o’ s r e t a l i a t i on cl ai m because F i erro fa i l ed t o rai se a tri abl e i ss ue as t o w hether defe nd ant s knew ab o u t h is p r io rla w s u it. See B r o dh e im , 58 4 F . 3d at12 69 & n. 3 (t o d ef ea tsum m ary j udgm e nton aF i r s tA m e ndm e ntr e t a l i a t i on c l a i m i n the pr i s on c ont e xt , the p r is o n e rm u s t r a is e atr iab le is s u e a s to w h e th e r , in te ra lia , defe nd ant s t oo k an advers e a ct i on agai nsthi m because of hi s prot ec t ed cond uct ). T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o pr ope r l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton F i e rr o’ s due p r o c e s s c la im . Se e Da n i e l s v . Wi l l i a ms , 474 U . S . 327, 328 ( 1986) ( “ [ T ] he D ue P roce ss C l ause i s . . . no ti m pl i ca t ed by a n eg lig e n t a c tof a n of f i c i a l c aus i ng u n in te n d e d lo s s o f

o rin ju ryto lif

e , lib e rty , o rp r o p e rty .” ) ; R a m i rez v. G a la za , 33409- 15914 3 F . 3d 850, 860 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( “ [ I ] nm a t e s l a c k as e pa r a t e c ons t i tut i ona l e nt i t l e m e nt to as p e c if

ic p r is o n g r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e .” ) . F i erro’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A p p el l ees’ M o t i o n t o S u p p l em en tth e R eco rd o n A p p eal i s co n stru ed as a r e q u e s t f o rju d ic ia l n o tic e a n d , a s s u c h , is g r a n te d . AF F I RME D.