Thomas James v. Charles Ryan , 436 F. App'x 804 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        JUN 08 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                  U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    THOMAS M. JAMES,                                    No. 10-15918
    Plaintiff - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00510-GMS-JRI
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 24, 2011 **
    Before:        PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Thomas M. James, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that a prison
    policy banning sexually explicit materials violated his constitutional rights. We
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    *
    *
    The panel unanimously concluded this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal under 28
    U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We vacate
    and remand.
    James alleges that the prison policy banned sexually explicit publications
    and all nudity in publications and photos. We are unable to say at this early stage
    of the proceeding that James cannot state a claim for a First Amendment violation.
    See Dunn v. Castro, 
    621 F.3d 1196
    , 1205 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we
    reverse and remand for further proceedings.
    We do not consider James’s arguments, including those related to retaliation
    and amendments to the policy, raised for the first time on appeal. See Travelers
    Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 
    546 F.3d 1142
    , 1146 (9th Cir. 2008).
    James’s “Motion for Status” filed on October 14, 2010 is denied as moot.
    James’s “Motion for leave of Court; Motion for enlargement of Time” filed
    on October 14, 2010 is denied because it does not appear to relate to this appeal.
    James shall bear his costs on appeal.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2                                    10-15918
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-15918

Citation Numbers: 436 F. App'x 804

Judges: Pregerson, Thomas, Paez

Filed Date: 6/8/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024