DocketNumber: 15-15468
Citation Numbers: 667 F. App'x 264
Judges: Bea, Watford, Friepland
Filed Date: 6/23/2016
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT HOLMES, III, No. 15-15468 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01166-GMN- GWF v. FRANK DREESEN; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Robert Holmes, III, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access- to-courts and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bruce v. Ylst,351 F.3d 1283
, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Holmes’s access-to-courts claims because Holmes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered prejudice to a direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a habeas petition, or a challenge to his conditions of confinement as a result of defendants’ alleged conduct. See Lewis v. Casey,518 U.S. 343
, 348-355 (1996) (setting forth actual injury requirement). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Holmes’s retaliation claim because Holmes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Smith took an adverse action against Holmes because of his protected conduct. See Jones v. Williams,791 F.3d 1023
, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); see also Wood v. Yordy,753 F.3d 899
, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[M]ere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15468