William Lyons v. Howard Skolnik
Opinion
Opinion
William Lyons, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a ban on the personal possession of typewriters by inmates in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lyons’s First Amendment claim because the NDOC ban on typewriters was enacted to reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal of institutional safety. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (a regulation that impinges on First Amendment rights “is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”); Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir.2011) (concluding that the NDOC typewriter ban did not infringe upon inmate First Amendment rights because it was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests).