Unpublished Disposition, 934 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 934 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1991)

Donald Gene HENTHORN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-55874.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 11, 1990.* Decided May 31, 1991.

Before POOLE, CANBY and DAVID A. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Donald Henthorn appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985 action against United States government and prison officials. Henthorn alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional right to access to the courts. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Henthorn alleges that various actions by the defendants violated his constitutional right to access to the courts. These actions include: (1) transferring Henthorn from San Diego to Texarkana to prevent him from exercising his right to appeal; (2) denying him adequate time to use the prison library; (3) failing to provide him with photocopying services free of charge; (4) refusing to send his legal correspondence by certified mail free of charge; (5) seizing his legal documents; and (6) stealing or losing his legal papers during his transfer.

Construing plaintiff's pleadings liberally, Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984), we affirm the district court's conclusion that Henthorn's action has no reasonable basis in fact or law. Henthorn does not allege that he is being denied either an adequate law library or adequate assistance from persons with legal training. Accordingly, Henthorn can only state a claim for denial of access if he points to or alleges a specific injury. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Conway v. Oliver, 429 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1970). Henthorn has not alleged actual injury to court access nor do we believe he could point to a specific injury. Since his transfer to FCI Texarkana, Henthorn has filed numerous legal documents. His appellate brief of 115 pages was rejected for exceeding the page limit requirements. Moreover, in addition to this case, Henthorn maintains that his current pro se activities include twelve other actions or motions in various courts around the country.

We also note that there is no evidence to support Henthorn's claim that prison authorities transferred Henthorn from San Diego to Texarkana to prevent him from exercising his right to appeal. Henthorn's own pleadings indicate that he was transferred to Texas to stand trial on other charges.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4. Henthorn's request for oral argument is denied

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3