Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 1537 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

John J. Zichko, a pro se prisoner, appeals a summary judgment for defendant prison officials on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Construing his pleadings liberally, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), we find three claims: 1) Denial of access to the courts; 2) improper restrictions of his communication with his family; and 3) inadequate medical care. We affirm.

* Zichko contends that he has been denied access to the courts because prison officials refused to mail to the district court as evidence two envelopes containing flakes of skin and a piece of torn bedsheet. Under the two-step analysis of Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169-71 (9th Cir. 1989), unless the prisoner alleges inadequate libraries or legal aid he must prove actual denial of access to the courts. Id. at 1171. The evidence here was returned and Zichko was advised of his right to submit it physically at an evidentiary hearing. These facts show no actual denial of access to courts.

II

Zichko claims that the defendants are violating his free speech rights by refusing to mail letters to his former wife and their children. The former wife requested, pursuant to Department of Corrections procedures, that all outgoing mail from Zichko to either her or their minor children be intercepted by prison officials. Zichko is currently incarcerated for raping the couple's minor daughter.

Because the prison's action is narrowly tailored to further the government's legitimate interest in protecting crime victims and their families, we hold it valid. See Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974)); see also Thornburgh v. Abbot, 490 U.S. 401, 411 (1989) (Martinez standard requires only that the regulation be generally necessary to a legitimate government interest); Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748, 755-56 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting that Martinez spoke primarily to rights of free world correspondents and that right to correspond with prisoners does not include the duty to receive unwanted mail).

III

Zichko's claim that defendants have failed to provide adequate medical care in violation of the eighth amendment is meritless. To prevail, he must show a deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials to his serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). The evidence shows that he has been diagnosed with psoriasis and has repeatedly refused to follow the prison doctor's treatment plan. No deliberate indifference by prison officials is evident.

IV

Zichko has failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Cartrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).

AFFIRMED.