Robert Smith, Iii v. James Gomez

MEMORANDUM

Robert P. Smith, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendant violated his right of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendant classifying him as non-indigent and denying him free legal copies. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

Smith’s challenges to the district court’s denial of his motions for injunctive relief are either moot or will not be considered by this court under the doctrine of law of the case. See Teamsters Joint Council No. 42 v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 82 F.3d 303, 307 (9th Cir.1996) (“Affirmance of the district court’s grant of summary judgment moots the preliminary…