Hunter

INTRODUCTION

16 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 17 1983 alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights because he could not call 18 into hearings in state court lawsuits against his ex-wife. Defendants filed a motion for summary 19 judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and defendants filed a reply brief. For the reasons 20 explained below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

23 Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that 24 there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 25 judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Material facts are those which may affect the 26 outcome of the case. A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for 27 a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 28 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the 2 …