Frank Wallmuller v. Casey Salisbury

MEMORANDUM

Frank A. Wallmuller, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his right of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wallmuller failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of the alleged lack of access to adequate legal resources while he was detained at the Mason County Jail. 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 plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying, without prejudice to renewal, Wallmuller’s motion to name Tom Haugen as one of the Doe defendants because, at the time the motion was filed, there was a motion for summary judgment pending; substitution of Haugen would have unnecessarily delayed the court’s con sideration of the summary…