Odoc

MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Bowling, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among other things, that defendants violated his right to access the courts by taking or failing to send out his legal mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Bowling’s access to court claims based on defendants’ alleged failure to provide assistance because Bowling either sought to pursue legal matters unrelated to his sentence or condition of confinement, or failed to allege actual injury. See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir.2011) (discussing the requirements for an access to court claim based on a failure to provide assistance).

However, the district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Silva , in which we explained that prisoners also have access to court rights to litigate without active interference claims that have a reasonable basis in law or fact. See id. at…