Myers
Myers v. Gomez
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Byron Chapin Myers appeals pro se the district court’s partial summary judgment and subsequent jury verdict for defendants in Myers’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they physically forced him to leave the prison law library, interfered with his legal mail, and blocked his access to his legal materials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 772 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
The district court’s partial summary judgment on Myers’s access to the courts claim was proper because Myers failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered injury from the defendants’ actions. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). The district court’s summary judgment on Myers’s claim of conspiracy was proper because Myers failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was an agreement between the defendants. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.1998).