Lee V. Quillar v. D. Shankland

14-15587Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOct 23, 2015

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEE V. QUILLAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. SHANKLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-15587
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02394-JAM-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Lee V. Quillar, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access
to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer
FILED
OCT 23 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 --

Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Quillar’s access-
to-courts claim because Quillar failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether the alleged denial of his legal papers caused actual injury to a non-
frivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (access-to-
courts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury to
a non-frivolous legal claim).
We reject Quillar’s argument that the district court erred in failing to
consider his retaliation claim, as this claim was not before the district court on
remand. We also reject Quillar’s contention that the district court abused its
discretion in failing to address his pending discovery motions, as no such motions
were pending.
Quillar’s request for judicial notice, filed on June 10, 2014, is denied.
Appellee’s request for judicial notice, filed on December 31, 2014, is
granted.
AFFIRMED.
14-15587 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.