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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2016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