Eric Hood v. South Whidbey School District

MEMORANDUM

Eric D. Hood appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to courts and state law claims, following an arbitration over the nonrenewal of his teaching contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hood failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a. result of defendant’s alleged withholding of pre-arbitration documents. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys’ fees against Hood as a sanction because Hood filed three frivolous…