* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 5 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TERRY COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 00-3109 SHERIFF, Wyandotte County, Kansas; J.B. HOPKINS, Jail Administrator; JOANNE TREYHE, Mail Clerk, Wyandotte County Detention Center; CARLA HARRIS, Classification Worker, Wyandotte County Detention Center; DAVID CLINTSMAN, Deputy Sheriff, Wyandotte County Sheriff’s Office, Defendants-Appellees. (D.C. No. 00-CV-3002-GTV) (D.Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, EBEL and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of2

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Terry Coleman, a state inmate appearing pro se, app eals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Coleman claims that the defendants conspired to interfere with his mail. He also clai ms that he was placed in administrative segregation in retaliation for exerc ising his First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the complaint because it failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. We affirm

. Interference with Coleman’s Mail On August 18, 1999, the District Court for the West ern District of Missouri sent an order via certified mail to Coleman at the Wyandotte County Jail, instructing him to correct defects in a compl aint in a civil action in that court. At the time the order was sent, Coleman was in the Brown County Jail in Minneapolis, Kansas. The return receipt was signedby Mary E. Nichols. The envelope was stamped “refused” and “return to sende r.” It is unclear whether there was an attempt to forward the mail to the Bro wn County Jail. Coleman contends that the mailing was received at t he Wyandotte County Jail on August 19 because mail takes only one day t o travel between Missouri and Kansas. August 19 is significant to Coleman becaus e on that date David Clintsman commented to Coleman that “Missouri Probation and Parole just called3

about you.” Clintsman also asked the deputies at t he Ottawa County Jail: “Is this one here [Coleman] trying to quote federal law to you guys?” The receipt shows the mail was not actually received until Augu st 22, however, so there is no evidence that Clintsman’s comments were linked to the mail. When Coleman returned to the Wyandotte County Jail, he learned the Missouri district court had dismissed his complaintfor failure to comply with the court’s order. Coleman filed a grievance with the mail clerk, Joanne Treyhe, who responded that Coleman had not received any legal m ail in August. Coleman notified the district court that he did not receive the order and the court vacated the dismissal. Coleman argues that the defendants continue to tamp er with his mail because his motion to subpoena phone records and mo tion to appoint counsel did not reach the court. Coleman’s correspondence with the district court shows that Coleman resubmitted the motions and the court recei ved them. Coleman is correct that he has a constitutional rig ht to adequate, effective, and meaningful access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977); Love v. Summit County , 776 F.2d 908, 912 (10th Cir. 1985). However, to bring a claim based on the denial of access to t he courts, a party must show actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Treff v. Galetka , 74 F.3d 191, 194 (10th Cir. 1996). There is no rea son to believe that Coleman’s4

litigation has been prejudiced. The court vacated the dismissal that was caused by Coleman’s failure to receive the court order. C oleman refiled his motion to subpoena phone records and motion to appoint counse l and the court received them. Coleman argues that he could prove a conspir acy to interfere with his mail if the Missouri district court had granted his moti on to subpoena evidence. However, decisions made by a federal district courtin Missouri are not reviewable by this court. Administrative Segregation Coleman contends his constitutional rights have bee n violated because he was placed in administrative segregation from Novem ber 22 through December 8, 1999, in retaliation for the grievance he filed. In order to base a § 1983 claim on administrative s egregation, Coleman needs to show that the prison condition complained of presents the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Cosco v. Uphoff , 195 F.3d 1221, 1223 (10th Cir. 1999). An allegat ion of administrative segregation, without allegations that the condition s of that segregation are atypical and significant, is insufficient. “‘[A]dm inistrative segregation is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably antic ipate receiving at some point in their incarceration.’” Penrod v. Zavaras , 94 F.3d 1399, 1407 (10th Cir. 1996)5

(quoting Hewitt v. Helms , 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983)). Coleman has made no allegations of facts that suggest the conditions of his administrative segregation were significant or atypical. AFFIRMED. Coleman is reminded that he is obligatedto continue making partial payments on his filing fees until they are paid in full. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge