John Entler v. Eldon Vail , 388 F. App'x 699 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN THOMAS ENTLER, No. 09-35571
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05695-FDB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ELDON VAIL, Secretary of the Dept of
Corrections, in his official and personal
capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
John Thomas Entler, a Washington State prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of
*
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).
access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, see Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Entler’s action because defendant was
not required to assist Entler in serving the summonses and complaints in his prior
state court actions challenging the conditions of his confinement under state law.
See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1986) (the constitutional right of access
to courts applies only to habeas petitions in which inmates directly or collaterally
attack their convictions or sentences, and to federal civil rights actions in which
they challenge the conditions of their confinement under federal law); see also
Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 1995) (right of access to the courts
“is designed to ensure that a habeas corpus petition or a [federal] civil rights
complaint of a person in state custody will reach a court for consideration”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Entler leave to
amend because he could no longer add new claims against new parties as a matter
of right, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15., and the deficiencies in his complaint could not be
cured, see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
The district court also properly entered a strike against Entler under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act on the ground that Entler’s action failed to state a
claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2 09-35571
Entler’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-35571