Joseph Bernard Ponder v. Dianna Rodgers Ernest Smith

83 F.3d 428 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Joseph Bernard PONDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dianna RODGERS; Ernest Smith, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-35991. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 22, 1996. * Decided April 26, 1996. Before: HALL, THOMPSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Joseph Bernard Ponder, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's (1) summary judgment in his consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions alleging violations of his First Amendment rights; (2) dismissal of his motion for the delivery of his legal materials; and (3) failure to consider Ponder's stipulated consent to consolidation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a district court's summary judgment de novo, Bryant v. Gomez, 46 F.3d 948, 949 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 Ponder contends that he presented an affidavit that raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendants…