N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JEREM IAH THOM ASSON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JEFF PREM O, Supe rinte nde nt of Ore g o n State Prison; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-35007 D.C . No. 6:14-c v-01788-M O M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B ER ZON, a nd WA TFORD, C i rc uit Judge s . Ore gon sta

te prisone r Je re m ia

h Thom a sson a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing c onstitutiona l c la im s a rising, in pa

rt, from his tra nsfe r through theInte rstat e C orre c tions C om pa c t 

# FIL ED OCT 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).to a Florida

sta te prison. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Re

snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism i ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)). W e m a y a ffirm on a

ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm

in pa rt, va c at e in pa

rt, a nd re m and. Dism issa l of Thom a sson’ s due proc e ss c la im s a lle ging a viola tion of (1) a sta te -c re ate d libe rty

inte re st, (2) the Due Proc e ss C la use , or (3) the Inte rstate C orre c tions C om

pa c t wa s prope r be c a

use Thom a sson fa ile d

to a lle ge fa c t s suffic i e nt to sta

te a c la i m . Se e Sandin v . C

onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d libe rty

inte re st a rise s only whe n prison offic i a ls im

pose an “ aty pic a l a nd signific ant ha

rdship on the

inm ate in re lation to the

ordina ry inc i de nts of prison life ” ); O lim v . W ak ine k ona , 461 U.S. 238, 248 (1983) (Due Proc e s s C la

use doe s not c re ate a

libe rty inte re st in a

voiding a n inte rsta te prison transfe r); Me ac hum v . Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (Due Proc e ss C la

use doe s not c re ate a

libe rty inte re st in a

voiding tra

nsfe r to m ore a dve rse c onditions of c onfine m e nt); Ghana v . Pe arc e , 159 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th C ir. 1998) (be c a use “ the C om pa c t is not fe de ra l la

w a nd doe s not c re ate a

c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d libe rty inte re s t,” a

viola tion of theC om

pa c t c annot be the ba sis for a § 1983 c la im ).

1 5 - 3 5 0 0 7 2Dism issa l of Thom a sson’ s a c c e ss-to-c o urts c la i m s c onc e rning (1) his

ina b ility to a ppe ar at a n O re gon sta

te c ourt he aring a

n d (2) a c c e ss to le ga l m ate ria ls wa s prope r be c a

use Thom a sson fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show a n a c tua l injury . Se eLe w is v . C

ase y , 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 354-55 (1996) (a c c e ss-to-c ourts c la im re quire s showing of a c tua l injury , whic h m e ans pre j udic e to dire c t

a p pe a ls of c rim ina l c onvic tions, ha

be a s pe titions, or c h a lle n ge s to c onditions of c onfine m e nt). Although the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism issing some of Thom a sson’ s c la im s without le a ve to a m e nd, se e C

happe l v . Lab. C

orp. of Am. , 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th C ir. 2000) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t “ [a ] distric t

c o urt a c ts within its disc

re tion to deny

le ave to a

m e nd whe n am e ndm e nt would befutile ” ), dism issa l without le ave to a m e n d wa s pre m ature a s to two c la im s: (1) the due proc e ss c la im pre m ise d on a sta te -c re ate d libe rty inte re st, a

nd (2) the a c c e ss-to-c ourts c la i m c o nc e rning a c c e ss to le ga l
m ate ria l s. S

e e Ak htar v . Me

sa , 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [B ] e fore dism issing a

pro se c om

pla int the distric t c ourt m ust providethe litiga

nt with notic e of the de fic ie nc ie s in his c om pla int in orde r to e nsure tha t the litiga

nt use s the o pportunity

to a m e nd e ffe c tive ly .” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om i tte d)). It is possible that Thom a sson c ould a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t prison offic ia ls, by

tra nsfe rring him , im

pose d a n aty p i c a l a nd signific ant ha

rdship

1 5 - 3 5 0 0 7 3giving riseto a prote c te d libe rty

inte re st, se e Sandin , 5 15 U.S. a t 483-84, a

n d tha t he c o uld a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he wa s de nie d a c c e ss in c o nne c t ion with a sta te ha b e a s pe tition or a

c ha lle nge to his c onditions of c onfine m e nt, se e Le w is , 518 U.S. a

t 348-49, 354-55. Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the judgm e nt in pa rt, and re m and for the distric t c ourt to provide Thom a sson a

n opportunity

to a m e nd his due proc e ss c la im

pre m i se d on a

sta te -c re at e d libe rty

inte re st a nd a c c e ss-toc ourts c la im

c onc e rning a c c e ss to le ga l m ate ria ls. AFFIRM E D in par t; V ACAT E D in par t; and RE M ANDE D.

1 5 - 3 5 0 0 7 4