Case Name: Ronnie S. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. RAMOS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-13
Citations: 212 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 06-15641
Parties: Ronnie S. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. RAMOS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAYY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 212
Pages: 637–638

Head Matter:
Ronnie S. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. RAMOS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-15641.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 13, 2006.
Ronnie S. Martin, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Jay Russell, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAYY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ronnie S. Martin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendant retaliated against him by denying his request to correspond with his brother. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
Martin brought this action seeking an injunction requiring that the defendant allow him to correspond with his brother, Hubert D. Martin. Martin's request for correspondence was approved, and since June 16, 2005, Martin has had permission to correspond with Hubert D. Martin. We agree with the district court that Martin's action is moot. See Wiggins v. Rushen, 760 F.2d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.1985) ("where the complainant was no longer subject to the allegedly illegal activity, the complaint for an injunction became moot").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.