Martin
Martin v. Mule Creek State Prison
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*294 MEMORANDUM **
Richard E. Martin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his constitutional rights by intercepting several sexually explicit magazines to which Martin subscribed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353 (9th Cir.1999), and the denial of a request for preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, Southwest Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914 , 918 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the regulation prohibiting Martin’s possession of sexually explicit material, 15 CahCode Reg. tit. 15, § 3006(c), is constitutional, because its underlying policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058-63 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). The district court’s grant of summary judgment was appropriate, because the undisputed…