CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
This pro se prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeds on the complaint filed July 31, 2013 against defendants Linde and Simpson.
Before the court is defendants' May 5, 2014 motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition. (ECF No. 85.) Having carefully reviewed the record and the applicable law, the undersigned will recommend that defendants' motion be granted.
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there "is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials. . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).
Summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial."
In resolving the summary judgment motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to be believed.
The following facts are undisputed
Plaintiff is a state prisoner who, at all relevant times, was housed at Mule Creek State Prison. In 1994, a Fresno jury convicted plaintiff of multiple counts of sexual offenses against minors, for which plaintiff was sentenced to 121 years in prison. In the years that followed, petitioner challenged his convictions through direct appeals and successive petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the California courts.
In January 2003, plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
Several weeks later, defendants Correctional Sergeant Linde and Correctional Officer Simpson confiscated twelve boxes of plaintiff's personal property from his cell at MCSP. The boxes contained legal papers and reading and writing materials. Plaintiff asserts, and the court assumes for purposes of the motion, that the boxes contained legal materials relating to
On March 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit docketed plaintiff's appeal of the district court's judgment.
On September 29, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiff's request for a certificate of appealability. It did so without having requested briefing by the parties. On November 18, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider the denial of a COA, and ordered that "no further filings" would be accepted in this "closed case."
Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts.
Here, plaintiff has not created a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the destruction of his legal materials caused him actual injury. Based on the voluminous record in his federal habeas action, first the district court, and then the Ninth Circuit, denied petitioner a COA — both effectively determining that petitioner did not present a "nonfrivolous legal claim" on appeal. Although petitioner's appeal was pending when his case materials were discarded, he did not miss a deadline, or lose the opportunity to present a claim, as a result. Nor has plaintiff shown that he was "actually injured" with respect to any potential, non-frivolous claim that had not been litigated in the fifteen years since his conviction.
As plaintiff fails to make the necessary showing on the "actual injury" element of his access-to-courts claim, the court need not reach whether there is a genuine dispute of fact as to other elements, nor defendants' argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79) be granted.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.