Case Name: John HARDNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-06
Citations: 398 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 09-17464
Parties: John HARDNEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Warden; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 305–305

Head Matter:
John HARDNEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Warden; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-17464.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.
Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
John Frederick Hardney, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Kelli Hammond, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the uncontroverted evidence shows that defendants' alleged acts or omissions did not cause Hardney's untimely filing of a habeas petition. See Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797-98 (9th Cir.1994) (prisoner alleging inadequate access to courts must show how inadequate access caused actual injury); see also Glenn K Jackson Inc. v. Roe, 273 F.3d 1192,1202 (9th Cir.2001) ("[A] district court may grant summary judgment on any legal ground the record supports.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Hardney's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.