Danny Bell v. J. Mejia

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Danny Bell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging correctional officer Mejia violated his right to access courts and retaliated against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review sum mary judgment de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and for abuse of discretion and proper application of legal principles an order denying a temporary restraining order, see Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291 , 1298 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Mejia on Bell’s access to courts claims because Bell failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he suffered any actual injury to his ability to litigate a habeas corpus or section 1983 action as a result of interference with his prison mail. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (explaining that prisoners asserting access to courts claims must show actual injury to their ability to challenge their sentences or conditions of confinement); see also Simmons v. Sacramento County Sup. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156,…