Donald Hunt v. Israel Gonzalez ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD HUNT, No. 17-35775
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-05125-EFS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ISRAEL R. GONZALEZ; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Donald Hunt appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional claims related to prison law library access and resources. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for
*
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).
summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670
F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunt’s access-to-
courts claim because Hunt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendants’ conduct. See Silva v.
Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102-04 (9th Cir. 2011) (requiring facts showing actual
injury in order to state a First Amendment access-to-courts claim), overruled on
other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir.
2015); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (prisoner must show that
the deficiencies in the prison’s legal assistance hindered his efforts to pursue a
legal claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunt’s free speech
claims based on the prison’s regulations regarding calendars, compact discs, and
carbon paper because Hunt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether the regulations are not reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (explaining four-factor
test to analyze validity of regulations that impinge on an inmate’s First
Amendment rights).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunt’s retaliation
claims because Hunt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
2 17-35775
defendants took any adverse action against him because of his protected conduct.
See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a
retaliation claim in the prison context).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunt’s deliberate
indifference claim because Hunt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Hunt’s health
or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official
cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate
humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”).
To the extent that Hunt contends that defendants improperly reviewed or
limited his grievances, the district court properly granted summary judgment
because there is no constitutional right to a particular type of grievance review.
See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a
separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-35775