22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4f7,MEMORANDUM William Womack, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when officials denied him access to the courts during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Womack failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions caused Womack to suffer an actual injury, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that the defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim), or as to whether Womack had a constitutional right to library access in order to contest a civil suit unrelated to a prison sentence or condition of confinement, see Silva v. DiVittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing “affirmative assistance” and “interference” access-to-courts claims). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T524,

MEMORANDUM

William Womack, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when officials denied him access to the courts during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Womack failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions caused Womack to suffer an actual injury, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that the defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim), or as to whether Womack had a constitutional right to library access in order to contest a civil suit unrelated to a prison sentence or condition of confinement, see Silva v. DiVittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing “affirmative assistance” and “interference” access-to-courts claims).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.