Vance Johnson v. R. Janzen

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, No. 13-16922
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02522-WBS-
KJN
v.
R. JANZEN, Lt., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Vance Edward Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an
access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo cross motions for summary judgment, Guatay Christian Fellowship v.
*
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).
County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant
caused an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536
U.S. 403, 414 (2002) (“The official acts claimed to have denied access [to the
courts]” must have “caused the loss [] of a meritorious case.”); Lewis v. Casey, 518
U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an access-to-courts claim).
Moreover, summary judgment for defendant was proper even taking into account
the full eight days preceding Johnson’s deadline for filing a petition for writ of
certiorari in his habeas proceeding.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16922