Gregory Jones v. Theresa Schroder , 708 F. App'x 377 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY KEITH JONES, No. 17-15605
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-01032-RM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THERESA SCHRODER, Administration
Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Gregory Keith Jones appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Glenn
v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864, 870 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jones’s access-to-
courts claim related to the withholding of affidavits in 2013 because Jones failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants caused injury to a
nonfrivolous or arguable underlying claim. See Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070,
1075-76 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts claim
relating to a lost opportunity to present a legal claim), vacated on other grounds,
555 U.S. 1150 (2009).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jones’s legal mail
claim relating to the withholding of Jones’s mail in 2013 because Jones failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the subject mail constituted
legal mail. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576 (1974) (stating that legal
mail must “be specially marked as originating from an attorney, with his name and
address being given, if [it is] to receive special treatment”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jones’s retaliation
claim and legal mail claim related to the withholding of his mail in 2012 because
Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly
exhausted administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were
effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006)
(“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . means using all steps that the
agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on
2 17-15605
the merits).” (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15605