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:T4ba,MEMORANDUM Idaho state prisoner Stephen A. Cherry appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cherry’s access-to-courts claim against defendant Higgins because Cherry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendant Higgins’s misplacement of his legal materials. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); see also Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-04 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing access-to-courts claims arising from “active interference”), overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202 , 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4e7,

MEMORANDUM

Idaho state prisoner Stephen A. Cherry appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cherry’s access-to-courts claim against defendant Higgins because Cherry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendant Higgins’s misplacement of his legal materials. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); see also Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-04 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing access-to-courts claims arising from “active interference”), overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202 , 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.