John F. Ausler v. JAMES ROLLINS and PAMELA PRUITT

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN F. AUSLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES ROLLINS and PAMELA
PRUITT,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35649
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-05082-JPH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
John F. Ausler, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-35649 2
to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ausler’s denial of
access to courts claim because Ausler failed to identify any actual injury he
suffered as a result of the alleged delay by prison officials in providing him with
the modified judgment and sentence. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-55
(1996) (to show actual injury, a prisoner must demonstrate that he was thwarted in
his pursuit of a nonfrivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of
confinement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Ausler’s
motions for appointment of counsel because he failed to establish exceptional
circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
Ausler’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --