WILLIAM WOMACK V. JOHN OR JANE DOE, No. 13-35772 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 08 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM WOMACK, No. 13-35772 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05431-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN OR JANE DOE, Correctional Officers; FRANK HAUSCHILDT, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. William Womack, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when officials denied him access to the courts * 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). during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Womack failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions caused Womack to suffer an actual injury, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that the defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim), or as to whether Womack had a constitutional right to library access in order to contest a civil suit unrelated to a prison sentence or condition of confinement, see Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing “affirmative assistance” and “interference” access-to-courts claims). AFFIRMED. 2 13-35772

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.