Louis D. Cosco v. Debi D. Lightsey

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LOUIS D. COSCO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEBI D. LIGHTSEY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-17162
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00078-JCM-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Louis D. Cosco, formerly a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation
of his right of access to the courts arising from a prison librarian’s failure to
photocopy a legal document in a timely manner. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17162 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir.
2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Lightsey because
the right of access to the courts is limited to cases in which inmates “attack their
sentences, directly or collaterally, and . . . challenge the conditions of their
confinement. Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the
incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and
incarceration.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355 (1996). Cosco’s underlying
litigation was not a challenge to his conviction or to his conditions of confinement.
Rather, it was based on a declaratory judgment action related to a settlement
agreement he had entered into with Wyoming prison officials, regarding
compensation for property that was confiscated from his prison cell. Therefore,
Cosco had no constitutional right of access to the courts to litigate the underlying
action. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th
Cir. 2003) (explaining that “a prisoner has no constitutional right of access to the
courts to litigate an unrelated civil claim”).
Cosco’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --