Alvarez

Alvarez v. Hill

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 12, 200806-35068California2,608 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

In June 2004, Alvarez, then an inmate at the Oregon State River Correctional Institution, filed a pro se complaint seek- ing redress for violations of the “First [and] Fourteenth Amendments” on the part of prison officials.1 Alvarez alleged 1 Alvarez also claimed that he was deprived of access to legal materials in violation of Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to this claim because Alva- rez has not “allege[d] injury, such as inability to file a complaint or defend against a charge” resulting from deficiencies in access. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2004). Failure to show that a “nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated” is fatal to his Bounds claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 & n.4 (1996). 2462 ALVAREZ v. HILL that they “ ‘burden[ed] substantially’ . . . his religion” by denying him the “right to participate and practice the Sweat Lodge Ceremony and Sacred Pipe Ceremony” and by making it “difficult if not impossible to communicate with any of his tribe[’]s religious representatives.” He also alleged that they forbade him from wearing a headband,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.