JAMES PROCTOR V. SUSAN SPARKE, No. 11-15596 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 15 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES EDWARD PROCTOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-15596 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00786-RCJ-VPC v. MEMORANDUM * SUSAN M. SPARKE, Law Library Supervisor; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted March 6, 2012 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. James Edward Proctor, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging interference with his access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We vacate and remand. The district court ruled that Proctor could not state an access-to-courts claim because an inmate does not have a constitutional right of access to the courts to appeal a denial of a habeas petition. Recently, in Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011), we held that prisoners have a right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement to conclusion without active interference by prison officials. Id. at 1103 (explaining the difference between the right to assistance and interference analyses for a prisoner s access-to-courts claim). Because the district court did not have the benefit of Silva when it dismissed Proctor s action, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. Proctor shall bear his own costs on appeal. VACATED AND REMANDED. 2 11-15596

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.