FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO ALVAREZ, No. 09-17755
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:07-cv-01678-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERT HOREL, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Alvarez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging interference with
his legal mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
the district court’s dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to
*
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).
state a claim, Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Alvarez’s claim that defendant Carrier
violated his right to access the courts by opening his legal mail because Alvarez
failed to allege that he suffered an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
346 (1996) (defining actual injury as “actual prejudice with respect to
contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or
to present a claim”).
The district court properly dismissed Alvarez’s claim that defendant Carrier
violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by opening his legal mail because
the Sixth Amendment applies only to criminal proceedings. See Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576 (1974).
The district court properly dismissed Alvarez’s supervisory liability claims
against defendants Tilton, Horel, and Kirkland because Alvarez failed to allege that
these defendants “participated in or directed [any constitutional] violations, or
knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” See Taylor v. List, 880
F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
2 09-17755
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Alvarez’s request
for appointment of counsel because he failed to show exceptional circumstances.
See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 09-17755