FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DESHAWN MALONE, No. 13-15712
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01758-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
F. GONZALEZ, Warden; THOMAS
HEASLIP, Law Library Supervisor at
CCI,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 18, 2014***
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Deshawn Malone appeals pro se from the district
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Malone consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access
to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Malone’s access-to-courts claim
because the constitutional right of “affirmative assistance” to access courts does
not encompass the right to pursue a state court lawsuit challenging prison guards’
alleged use of inappropriate language. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-
04 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing “affirmative assistance” and “interference” types of
access-to-courts claims, and explaining that the constitutional right to affirmative
assistance is limited to a direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a habeas petition,
or a civil rights action to vindicate basic constitutional rights). Moreover, though
inmates do have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue any non-frivolous
lawsuit without “interference” from prison officials, Malone’s allegation that
defendants did not help him obtain the appropriate state court legal forms does not
constitute interference with the pursuit of a lawsuit. Id. at 1102-04 (discussing
requirements for an access-to-court claim premised on prison officials’ alleged
interference, as opposed to affirmative assistance, with any prisoner lawsuit).
2 13-15712
We deem waived issues that Malone raises for the first time on appeal
concerning “Judicial Form Books” that allegedly include relevant state court forms
and are allegedly available at all state prison central libraries. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15712