LEE QUILLAR V. D. SHANKLAND, No. 14-15587 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 23 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEE V. QUILLAR, No. 14-15587 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02394-JAMKJN v. MEMORANDUM* D. SHANKLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Lee V. Quillar, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer * 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). Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Quillar’s accessto-courts claim because Quillar failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged denial of his legal papers caused actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (access-tocourts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim). We reject Quillar’s argument that the district court erred in failing to consider his retaliation claim, as this claim was not before the district court on remand. We also reject Quillar’s contention that the district court abused its discretion in failing to address his pending discovery motions, as no such motions were pending. Quillar’s request for judicial notice, filed on June 10, 2014, is denied. Appellee’s request for judicial notice, filed on December 31, 2014, is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 14-15587

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.