Richard L. Gahr v. Gary Swarthout;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICHARD L. GAHR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GARY SWARTHOUT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15013
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02356-FCD-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Richard L. Gahr appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access
to courts and defamation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15013 2
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gahr’s action because he failed to
allege prison officials’ refusal to photocopy documents caused him actual injury or
deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest. See Lewis v. Casey, 518
U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (actual injury for access-to-courts claim requires showing
that defendants hindered a non-frivolous legal claim); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693,
712 (1976) (§ 1983 defamation claim requires violation of protected liberty or
property interest).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --