Conrad Nichols v. J. Jacoby
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Oregon state prisoner Conrad Nichols appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the search of his cell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nichols’s claims for denial of access to the courts, denial of due process, and unlawful search and seizure. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (prisoner must show that he or she suffered actual injury in order to establish a violation of the right of access to the courts); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (no Fourteenth Amendment due process violation where “predeprivation process is impracticable,” provided that “a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available”); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 522 (9th Cir.1996) (“An inmate ordinarily has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his jail cell or his possessions within it.”).