Jeremy Crozier v. Adam Endel , 446 F. App'x 14 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 26 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY ALLEN CROZIER, No. 10-16072
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00326-RCJ-
RAM
v.
ADAM ENDEL; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Jeremy Allen Crozier appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state
law claims related to his subscription to an erotic magazine. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,
447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Crozier’s First Amendment claim was proper because the
prison policy banning his erotic magazine was reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests. See Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 975-76 (9th Cir.
2004) (affirming regulation banning sexually explicit materials as rationally related
to minimizing harmful inmate behavior); Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1060-
62 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (allowing inmates unrestricted access to sexually
explicit material would have significant detrimental impact on inmates’ and
guards’ safety, and alternative solutions did not impose only de minimis costs).
Dismissal of Crozier’s due process claim was proper because Crozier
admitted to receiving notice that his erotic magazine was prohibited under
applicable regulations and having an opportunity to be heard on the issue. See
Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 696-98 (9th Cir. 2003) (prisoner must have notice and
the right to appeal the exclusion of incoming publications to prison officials);
Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 972 (9th Cir. 2002) (interception of inmate mail
need only be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards).
2 10-16072
The district court properly dismissed Crozier’s access-to-courts claim
because Crozier failed to allege any actual injury as a result of the alleged
inadequacies of the prison law library or his limited access to legal supplies. See
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (inmate must demonstrate that the
alleged shortcomings in prison’s library or legal assistance program hindered his
efforts to pursue a legal claim); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n.1 (9th Cir.
2008) (failure to show frustration of a non-frivolous legal claim is fatal to claim for
denial of access to legal materials).
Crozier’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We assume that the district court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Crozier’s state law claim under the Nevada Constitution after
dismissing his § 1983 claims, and therefore construe the dismissal of this claim to
have been without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); cf. Gini v. Las Vegas
Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (requiring clarification
that dismissal based on declining supplemental jurisdiction was without prejudice).
We grant Crozier’s motion to supplement the record on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-16072