PATRICIA GREGORY V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, No. 15-55665 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 3 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATRICIA A. GREGORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55665 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01016-WQHJMA v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Former California state prisoner Patricia A. Gregory appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging accessto-courts claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, * 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). 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Gregory’s access-to-court claim stemming from her direct criminal appeal and habeas petition because Gregory failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she suffered actual injury as a result of defendants’ conduct or policies. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 354-55 (1996) (setting forth actual injury requirement); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (setting forth requirements for municipal liability). The district court properly dismissed Gregory’s access-to-courts claim stemming from the State Bar decision against her because Gregory has no constitutional right of access to the courts to litigate an unrelated civil claim. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “a prisoner has no constitutional right of access to the courts to litigate an unrelated civil claim”). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 15-55665
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.
