David Pedersen v. Tracy Schneider ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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