The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-15596•James Edward Proctor v. SUSAN M. SPARKE, Law Library Supervisor;
11-15596Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 15, 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAMES EDWARD PROCTOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUSAN M. SPARKE, Law Library
Supervisor; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15596
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00786-RCJ-VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
James Edward Proctor, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
interference with his access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-15596 2
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We vacate and remand.
The district court ruled that Proctor could not state an access-to-courts claim
because “an inmate does not have a constitutional right of access to the courts to
appeal a denial of a habeas petition.” Recently, in Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d
1090 (9th Cir. 2011), we held “that prisoners have a right under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims challenging their sentences or the
conditions of their confinement to conclusion without active interference by prison
officials.” Id. at 1103 (explaining the difference between the “right to assistance”
and “interference” analyses for a prisoner’s access-to-courts claim). Because the
district court did not have the benefit of Silva when it dismissed Proctor’s action,
we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Proctor shall bear his own costs on appeal.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.