William Womack v. John or Jane Doe

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 08 2015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