Sylvester James Mahone v. Washington State Reformatory

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVESTER JAMES MAHONE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE
REFORMATORY,
Defendant,
and
CAROL GRANDMONTAGNE,
Corrections Captain for the Washington
State Reformatory; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35113
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00499-JLR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LA/Research 09-35113 2
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges,
Sylvester James Mahone, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mahone’s access
to courts claim because Mahone failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether legal mail rules frustrated his ability to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim.
See Lewis v. Casey, 578 U.S. 343, 352-53 (1996).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mahone’s
retaliation claim because Mahone failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether the allegedly retaliatory conduct was unrelated to legitimate penological
goals. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).
Mahone’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --