Case Name: Thomas M. JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-08
Citations: 436 F. App'x 804
Docket Number: No. 10-15918
Parties: Thomas M. JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 436
Pages: 804–805

Head Matter:
Thomas M. JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15918.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 8, 2011.
Thomas M. James, Douglas, AZ, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concluded this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas M. James, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a prison policy banning sexually explicit materials violated his constitutional rights. 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.
James alleges that the prison policy banned sexually explicit publications and all nudity in publications and photos. We are unable to say at this early stage of the proceeding that James cannot state a claim for a First Amendment violation. See Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1205 n. 7 (9th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
We do not consider James's arguments, including those related to retaliation and amendments to the policy, raised for the first time on appeal. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2008).
James's "Motion for Status" filed on October 14, 2010 is denied as moot.
James's "Motion for leave of Court; Motion for enlargement of Time" filed on October 14, 2010 is denied because it does not appear to relate to this appeal. James shall bear his costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.