Court Opinion

ID: 4247500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-22 21:00:38.384926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:09.344969
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN A. CHERRY,                              No. 16-35921

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00271-EJL-REB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DEWAYNE SHEDD; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Idaho
                    Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 13, 2018**

Before:      LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

      Idaho state prisoner Stephen A. Cherry appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-

courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cherry’s

access-to-courts claim against defendant Higgins because Cherry failed to raise a

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a

result of defendant Higgins’s misplacement of his legal materials. See Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires the plaintiff to

show that the defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal

claim); see also Silva v. DiVittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-04 (9th Cir. 2011)

(discussing access-to-courts claims arising from “active interference”), overruled

on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir.

2015).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    16-35921