David Raymond Andrews v. J. EVERT, Library Technical Asst.;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DAVID RAYMOND ANDREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. EVERT, Library Technical Asst.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17520
D.C. No. 5:09-cv-05858-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
David Raymond Andrews, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment and dismissal order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging that defendants placed him in restraints because of his race and
conspired to deny him access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17520 2
§ 1291. We review de novo summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Andrews’s access-
to-courts claim based on the alleged withholding of his certificate of funds because
Andrews failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered
an actual injury as a result of the policy prohibiting personal possession of certified
documents. 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).
The district court properly dismissed Andrews’s equal protection claim
because Andrews failed to exhaust administrative remedies in a proper manner.
See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper
exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural
rules); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 825 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n inmate must
first present a complaint at the first level of the administrative process.”); Griffin v.
Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2009) (an inmate’s grievance must
“‘provide enough information . . . to allow prison officials to take appropriate
responsive measures’” (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --