Case Name: Emiliano LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-25
Citations: 481 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 11-17356
Parties: Emiliano LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
Emiliano LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17356.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
Emiliano Lopez, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Emiliano Lopez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing 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 a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We vacate and remand.
The district court dismissed Lopez's access to courts claim because he failed to allege that defendants actions or inactions prevented him from pursuing a challenge to his sentence or conditions of confinement. However, the district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102-04 (9th Cir.2011), in which we explained that prisoners have access to court rights to litigate without active interference claims that have a reasonable basis in law or fact. As the district court noted, Lopez alleged an access to court claim based on defendants' alleged interference with his ability to litigate in family court. Furthermore, Lopez clarified in his objections to the Findings and Recommendation that his "interference" access to court claim is his sole claim. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Lopez shall bear his own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.