John Hardney v. ANTHONY LAMARQUE, Warden;

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).
09-17464
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN HARDNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY LAMARQUE, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17464
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00476-JAM-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 22, 2010**
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the
uncontroverted evidence shows that defendants’ alleged acts or omissions did not
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17464 2
cause Hardney’s untimely filing of a habeas petition. See Vandelft v. Moses, 31
F.3d 794, 797-98 (9th Cir. 1994) (prisoner alleging inadequate access to courts
must show how inadequate access caused actual injury); see also Glenn K. Jackson
Inc. v. Roe, 273 F.3d 1192, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] district court may grant
summary judgment on any legal ground the record supports.”) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Hardney’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --