Case Name: Devonte Bernard HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike GARDNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-07
Citations: 471 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 10-17809
Parties: Devonte Bernard HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike GARDNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
Devonte Bernard HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike GARDNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17809.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012
Filed March 7, 2012.
Devonte Bernard Harris, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Donn Robert Duncan, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
California state prisoner Devonte Bernard Harris appeals pro se from the dis trict court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendants violated his right of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment de novo, Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 682 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Harris failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of the correctional officers not shutting the office door while he was talking to his attorney on the phone. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (aceessto-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants' conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.2011) ("To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants' motion to stay discovery. See Little, 863 F.2d at 685 (district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery until the issue of immunity was decided because discovery could not have affected summary judgment).
Harris'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.