Walker

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner G. Daniel Walker appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants conspired to deprive him of access to the courts by transferring him back to California without his legal materials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walker’s claims against defendants Kelly, Gildner, Carey, Shea, Singer, and Vaughn because Walker did not present sufficient evidence that they were personally involved in withholding his legal materials or interfering with his mail. See Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir.2002) (“A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”); Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1046 (affirming summary judgment for defendants on an access to courts claim where evidence of personal participation was absent).

The district court properly dismissed Walker’s claims as to the remaining Kern County defendants under the doctrine of judicial immunity because Walker failed to raise a triable…