William D. Dunne v. D. Smith;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WILLIAM D. DUNNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. SMITH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16342
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00074-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner William D. Dunne appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that a prison
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16342 2
policy restricting access to newspapers and magazines in the Special Housing Unit
violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.
2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dunne failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the policy is not reasonably
related to legitimate penological interests. See id. at 901 (“[A] regulation that
impinges upon a prisoner’s constitutional rights is valid if the regulation is
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)). Nor did Dunne raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether he was actually denied access to the law library and reading material.
See W. Radio Servs. Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 578 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009)
(discussing the requirements of a Bivens action, including the deprivation of a
federal right).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --