Richard McKenzie v. Maureen Rossi-Hill

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD L. McKENZIE, No. 10-35672
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01752-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MAUREEN ROSSI-HILL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Richard L. McKenzie appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgments in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-to-
courts, due process, and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Toguchi
*
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).
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and for an abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to compel discovery, Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th
Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on McKenzie’s
access-to-courts claim because McKenzie failed to identify any actual injury he
suffered as a result of prison officials’ actions. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
351-55, (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants’
conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim concerning his
conviction or conditions of confinement).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on McKenzie’s due
process claim concerning prison disciplinary proceedings because McKenzie
received all of the process that was due, and some evidence supported the
disciplinary findings. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974); see
also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on McKenzie’s
retaliation claim because McKenzie failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to retaliatory motive. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th
Cir. 2005) (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim).
2 10-35672
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McKenzie’s motion
to compel discovery because McKenzie failed to demonstrate that he suffered any
prejudice. See Hallett, 296 F.3d at 751 (trial court’s broad discretion to deny
discovery “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that [the] denial
of discovery result[ed] in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining
litigant”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3 10-35672