JAVANCE WILSON V. A. PANIZZA, No. 11-17045 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAVANCE MICKEY WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-17045 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01627-JW v. MEMORANDUM * A. PANIZZA; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Ware, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Javance Mickey Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights when they confiscated a book * 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). from his incoming mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants actions were not reasonably related to a legitimate correctional goal. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (setting forth relevant factors in determining whether a regulation that impinges on First Amendment rights is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests); see also Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528-30 (2006) (courts should accord prison officials deference when analyzing the constitutional validity of prison regulations). Wilson s contention that the district court should have requested a copy of the confiscated book to review are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 11-17045

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.