Case Name: Rodney L. GARROTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jean STEWART; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-02
Citations: 507 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 11-35849
Parties: Rodney L. GARROTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jean STEWART; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 507
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
Rodney L. GARROTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jean STEWART; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-35849.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Jan. 2, 2013.
Rodney L. Garrott, Seattle, WA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Washington state prisoner Rodney L. Garrott appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of his right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir.2011); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998)(order). We vacate and remand.
In light of this court's recent decision in Silva, the district court may have prematurely dismissed Garrott's action because the allegations liberally construed may have been "sufficient to meet the low threshold for proceeding past the screening stage." Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir.2012); see Silva, 658 F.3d at 1102-04 (explaining that prisoners have the right to litigate, without active interference, claims that have a reasonable • basis in law or fact, and concluding that allegations that defendants' transfer of inmate hindered inmate's ability to litigate his pending civil action and resulted in actual injury were sufficient to state a claim); see also Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d. 1082, 1091 (9th Cir.l994)(eoneluding that inmate alleged actual injury even though the state court eventually considered inmate's petition),
VACATED and REMANDED,
This disposition is not appropriate for publi- . cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.