FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 08 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM WOMACK, No. 13-35772
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05431-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN OR JANE DOE, Correctional
Officers; FRANK HAUSCHILDT,
Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
William Womack, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated when officials denied him access to the courts
*
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).
during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Womack
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions
caused Womack to suffer an actual injury, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
348-53 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that the
defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim), or as to
whether Womack had a constitutional right to library access in order to contest a
civil suit unrelated to a prison sentence or condition of confinement, see Silva v. Di
Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing “affirmative
assistance” and “interference” access-to-courts claims).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35772