Unpublished Disposition, 874 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^* 

David A. Mann, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Mann alleged that Arizona prison officials and the Arizona Attorney General violated his right of access to the courts in a case he had pending in the Fifth Circuit by (1) requiring him to use the record on appeal in the presence of a prison official, and (2) preventing him from photocopying any part of that record. We affirm.

The requirement that Mann had to use the Fifth Circuit record in the presence of a prison official was a constitutionally adequate method of providing access to the courts. See United States ex rel. Davidson v. Wilkinson, 618 F.2d 1215, 1218 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 862 (1980). With regard to Mann's contention that his constitutional right of access was violated by denial of his request to make photocopies of the record, Mann has alleged no facts to support this contention. He does not allege that his time to review and work from the original record was cut short, or that the place provided for his review was inadequate, or that his work with the record was impeded in any way by the prison or by its official who was present during the review process. He does not explain how his inability to make photocopies of the record had any adverse impact on the brief he filed in the Fifth Circuit. In sum, Mann has alleged no injury as a result of the refusal of his request to make photocopies of the record. Thus, he has made no showing that the denial of his photocopy request violated his constitutional right of access to the courts. See Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) (right of access to courts does not include the right to make photocopies unless denial of copying privileges prevents prisoner from exercising right of access to courts).

The appellees' request that they be awarded attorney fees on appeal as a sanction against Mann is denied. Although Mann's contentions on appeal lack merit, they are not frivolous. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 561 (1988).

AFFIRMED.