Fox Salerno v. Henry Munoz , 507 F. App'x 677 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOX JOSEPH SALERNO, No. 11-17755
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00858-ROS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HENRY C. MUNOZ, SSU; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Fox Joseph Salerno, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s dismissal order and summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983action alleging that defendants violated his First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
rights when they read a letter to his attorney. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Salerno’s access-to-courts claim
because Salerno failed to state facts sufficient to show that defendants’ actions
hindered Salerno’s efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (setting forth actual injury requirement).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Salerno’s
remaining First and Fourth Amendment claims because Salerno failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his rights by
reading and investigating the contents of the letter to Salerno’s attorney after
defendants were notified of the threat posed by the letter. See Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (discussing factors for determining whether regulation that
impinges on First Amendment rights is reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir. 1997) (the
reasonableness of searches and seizures by prison officials should be analyzed in
light of the Turner factors); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979)
(prison officials “should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and
2 11-17755
execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve
internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Salerno’s Sixth
Amendment claim because Salerno failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants’ conduct interfered with Salerno’s ability to communicate
with his criminal attorney or obtain evidence in a criminal proceeding. See
Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 584-85 (9th Cir. 2004) (“When the
government deliberately interferes with the confidential relationship between a
criminal defendant and defense counsel, that interference violates the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel if it substantially prejudices the criminal defendant.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-17755