BRIAN EDWARDS V. M. MCDONALD, No. 15-16185 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 22 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN DARNELL EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16185 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01264-MCEDAD v. M. D. McDONALD, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Brian Darnell Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards’s access-tocourts claim because Edwards failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants caused an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 354-55 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards’s Fourth Amendment claim because prisoners have no Fourth Amendment right of privacy in their cells. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984) (“Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells”). We cannot review Edwards’s contentions challenging the district court’s judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of Edwards’s evidence on Edwards’s claims arising from the confiscation of banned books because Edwards has failed to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged errors. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant 2 15-16185 trial transcripts). AFFIRMED. 3 15-16185

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.