ROBERT HOLMES, III V. FRANK DREESEN, No. 15-15468 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT HOLMES, III, No. 15-15468 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01166-GMNGWF v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK DREESEN; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Robert Holmes, III, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging accessto-courts and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Holmes’s access-to-courts claims because Holmes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered prejudice to a direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a habeas petition, or a challenge to his conditions of confinement as a result of defendants’ alleged conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-355 (1996) (setting forth actual injury requirement). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Holmes’s retaliation claim because Holmes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Smith took an adverse action against Holmes because of his protected conduct. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); see also Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[M]ere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15468

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.