Vance Edward Johnson v. R. JANZEN, Lt.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. JANZEN, Lt.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-16922
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02522-WBS-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Vance Edward Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an
access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo cross motions for summary judgment, Guatay Christian Fellowship v.
FILED
DEC 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant
caused an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536
U.S. 403, 414 (2002) (“The official acts claimed to have denied access [to the
courts]” must have “caused the loss [] of a meritorious case.”); Lewis v. Casey, 518
U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an access-to-courts claim).
Moreover, summary judgment for defendant was proper even taking into account
the full eight days preceding Johnson’s deadline for filing a petition for writ of
certiorari in his habeas proceeding.
AFFIRMED.
13-16922 2

-- 2 of 2 --