Case Name: James Edward PROCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan M. SPARKE, Law Library Supervisor; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-15
Citations: 472 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 11-15596
Parties: James Edward PROCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan M. SPARKE, Law Library Supervisor; et al., DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
James Edward PROCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan M. SPARKE, Law Library Supervisor; et al., DefendantsAppellees.
No. 11-15596.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 15, 2012.
James Edward Proctor, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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
James Edward Proctor, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging interference with his access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We vacate and remand.
The district court ruled that Proctor could not state an access-to-courts claim because "an inmate does not have a constitutional right of access to the courts to appeal a denial of a habeas petition." Recently, in Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.2011), we held "that prisoners have a light under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement to conclusion without active interference by prison officials." Id. at 1103 (explaining the difference between the "right to assistance" and "interference" analyses for a prisoner's access-to-courts claim). Because the district court did not have the benefit of Silva when it dismissed Proctor's action, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Proctor 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.