Fox Salerno v. Henry Munoz

Good Law
507 F. App'x 677
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 2, 201311-17755California421 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Fox Joseph Salerno, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal order and summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights when they read a letter to his attorney. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Salerno’s access-to-courts claim because Salerno failed to state facts sufficient to show that defendants’ actions hindered Salerno’s efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth actual injury requirement).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Salerno’s remaining First and Fourth Amendment claims because Salerno failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his rights by reading and investigating the contents of the letter to Salerno’s…

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.