Cleveland Scott, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Leonard Cardoza, et al., Defendants-appellees, 960 F.2d 152 (9th Cir. 1992)

MEMORANDUM^*** 

Although Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988) states that " [d]istrict courts are obligated to advise prisoner pro per litigants of Rule 56 requirements", in this case (where the pro per litigant filed his own, procedurally adequate motion for summary judgment; opposed the defendants' motion for summary judgment with extensive evidence; had the benefit of their pleadings in support of their motion for summary judgment, which referred to his burden in opposition; and made no objection to the inadequacy of discovery, which had closed long before either party filed a motion for summary judgment) the district court's failure to meet that obligation was harmless error.¹ 

As to Scott's arguments that prison officials denied him a confidential space in which to meet his attorney and that they opened mail from his attorney outside his presence, the district court correctly concluded that Scott had failed, as he is required, to allege or show an actual injury to his right of access to the courts.²  As to his argument that prison officials denied him an adequate law library, when a prisoner is represented--as Scott has been at every stage of his related trials--by appointed counsel, the defendants have satisfied their constitutional duty of providing him full access to the courts.³  Finally, Scott's amalgam of vague complaints under the Eighth Amendment are entirely unsupported by evidence and cannot be considered on appeal because he did not raise them below.⁴ 

AFFIRMED.