Daniel Smith v. Figeroe ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            NOV 01 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DANIEL LAWRENCE SMITH,                           No. 10-17141
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00837-WBS-
    CMK
    v.
    FIGEROE; et al.,                                 MEMORANDUM *
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 25, 2011 **
    Before:        TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Daniel Lawrence Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
    district court’s summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that
    defendants violated his right of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 
    393 F.3d 918
    , 926
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed
    to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury
    as a result of the loss of the Keybo declaration. See Lewis v. Casey, 
    518 U.S. 343
    ,
    350-53 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants’
    conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim). Specifically, Smith
    did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the declaration
    contained “newly discovered evidence” that would allow him to pursue a state
    habeas action. In re Hardy, 
    163 P.3d 853
    , 872 (Cal. 2007) (setting forth the
    requirements for pursuing a habeas action claiming actual innocence based on
    newly discovered evidence).
    We do not consider issues that were not raised in the opening brief. See
    Smith v. Marsh, 
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
    Smith’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     10-17141
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-17141

Judges: Trott, Gould, Rawlinson

Filed Date: 11/1/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024