Matthew Young v. Mark Nooth

MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Matthew Robert Young appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with defendants’ handling of his incoming and outgoing mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment. To- guchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Young’s claim that defendants improperly opened a letter from an attorney’s office and replaced it with a forgery because Young failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the letter was a forgery or had been tampered with. See 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 in denying Young leave to amend his complaint because Young failed to attach a proposed amended complaint as required by local rule. See Waters v. Weyerhaeuser Mortg. Co., 582 F.2d 503 , 507 (9th Cir.1978) (reviewing…