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:T449,MEMORANDUM Former California state prisoner Lance R. Martin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising from defendants’ interference with his outgoing mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We dismiss the appeal as moot. In his operative second amended complaint, Martin sought only declaratory and injunctive relief regarding his mail. On May 5, 2016, this court received a letter from Martin indicating that he had been released from prison. Because Martin is no longer incarcerated, this appeal is moot. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2012) (an inmate’s release from prison generally will moot any pending claims for declaratory or injunctive relief because the inmate is no longer subject to the challenged prison conditions or policies). In light of our disposition, we do not consider Martin’s contentions regarding the merits of his claims. DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T47b,

MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Lance R. Martin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising from defendants’ interference with his outgoing mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We dismiss the appeal as moot.

In his operative second amended complaint, Martin sought only declaratory and injunctive relief regarding his mail. On May 5, 2016, this court received a letter from Martin indicating that he had been released from prison. Because Martin is no longer incarcerated, this appeal is moot. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2012) (an inmate’s release from prison generally will moot any pending claims for declaratory or injunctive relief because the inmate is no longer subject to the challenged prison conditions or policies).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Martin’s contentions regarding the merits of his claims.

DISMISSED.

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