VANCE JOHNSON V. R. JANZEN, No. 13-16922 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 4 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-16922 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02522-WBSKJN v. MEMORANDUM* R. JANZEN, Lt., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Vance Edward Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross motions for summary judgment, Guatay Christian Fellowship v. * 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). County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant caused an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 414 (2002) (“The official acts claimed to have denied access [to the courts]” must have “caused the loss [] of a meritorious case.”); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an access-to-courts claim). Moreover, summary judgment for defendant was proper even taking into account the full eight days preceding Johnson’s deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in his habeas proceeding. AFFIRMED. 2 13-16922

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.