Court Opinion

ID: 9366678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:01:09.157741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.592122
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID J. PEDERSEN,                              No. 22-35012

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05121-RSM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TRACY SCHNEIDER, Correctional
Manager,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Washington
                   Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      David J. Pedersen, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First

Amendment violation in connection with the rejection of outgoing mail. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

      *
             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).
decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim

Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because

Pedersen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the rejected

outgoing letter was not obscene or whether the prison’s policy regulating outgoing

mail did not further a substantial government interest. See Procunier v. Martinez,

416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott,

490 U.S. 401 (1989) (explaining that the First Amendment is not violated by

regulation of outgoing prisoner mail which furthers a substantial government

interest and is no greater than necessary to protect that interest); Miller v.

California, 413 U.S. 15, 23-26 (1973) (setting forth test for determining obscene

material unprotected by the First Amendment).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-35012