WYATT REDFOX V. BRANDON JONES, ET AL, No. 21-35863 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WYATT N. REDFOX, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-35863 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS v. MEMORANDUM* BRANDON JONES, Superintendent; SANDRA THOMAS, Assistant Superintendent; SAMUAL MEDLOCK, Standard's Officer; JANE DOE, "CO Hodges", Corrections Officer, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2023** Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Wyatt N. Redfox, who is incarcerated at Anchorage Correctional Complex West, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1983 action alleging access-to-courts claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Redfox’s action because Redfox failed to allege facts sufficient to show actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (explaining that an access-to-courts claim requires a plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused an actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (explaining that in an access-to-courts claim, “the underlying cause of action, whether anticipated or lost, is an element that must be described in the complaint”). Redfox’s motion to appoint counsel on appeal (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-35863

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.