Marcus L. Harrison v. D. Milligan;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCUS L. HARRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. MILLIGAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15022
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-04665-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Marcus L. Harrison, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants violated his First Amendment rights when they confiscated his mail.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v.
FILED
MAY 19 2015
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 --

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Harrison
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’
confiscation of his incoming mail was not reasonably related to the prison’s
legitimate penological interest in prison safety, and as to whether defendants’
confiscation of his outgoing mail did not further a substantial governmental interest
in prison safety. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989) (setting forth
factors for evaluating a First Amendment claim relating to the regulation of
incoming mail); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413-14 (1974) (setting forth
factors for evaluating a First Amendment claim relating to the regulation of
outgoing mail), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh, 490 U.S. 401; see also
Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528-30 (2006) (courts should accord “deference to
the views of prison authorities”).
Harrison’s request for appointment of counsel, as set forth in his opening
brief, is denied.
We do not address matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
14-15022 2

-- 2 of 2 --