Ronald Adams v. P.L. Vasquez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD ADAMS, No. 08-17377
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
P. L. VASQUEZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
**
Submitted December 15, 2009
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Adams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging defendants violated his right of access to the courts by restricting his
*
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).
IL/RESEARCH
access to the law library and legal materials and retaliated against him by issuing
various reports against him for his protected First Amendment activity. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on the
access to courts claim because the uncontroverted evidence shows that their
alleged acts or omissions did not cause dismissal of Adams’s section 1983 action
or denial of his habeas petition. See Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir.
1994) (recognizing that prisoner alleging inadequate access to courts must show
how inadequate access caused actual injury).
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on
Adams’s retaliation claim because Adams failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether the allegedly retaliatory conduct was unrelated to
legitimate penological interests. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.
1994) (per curiam).
Adams’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied, and his motion for
certificate of appealability is dismissed as not cognizable in this section 1983
appeal.
AFFIRMED.
IL/RESEARCH 2