Case Name: Javance Mickey WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. PANIZZA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-20
Citations: 498 F. App'x 722
Docket Number: No. 11-17045
Parties: Javance Mickey WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. PANIZZA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 498
Pages: 722–723

Head Matter:
Javance Mickey WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. PANIZZA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17045.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 20, 2012.
Mickey Wilson, San Quentin, CA, pro se. Kenneth T. Roost, Esquire, AGCA-Of-fice of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees. .
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Javance Mickey Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights when they confiscated a book from his incoming mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants' actions were not reasonably related to a legitimate correctional goal. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (setting forth relevant factors in determining whether a regulation that impinges on First Amendment rights is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests); see also Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528-30, 126 S.Ct. 2572, 165 L.Ed.2d 697 (2006) (courts should accord prison officials deference when analyzing the constitutional validity of prison regulations).
Wilson's contention that the district court should have requested a copy of the confiscated book to review are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.