EARNEST HARRIS V. E. MCCUMSEY, No. 18-15422 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EARNEST S. HARRIS, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-15422 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01487-JST v. MEMORANDUM* E. McCUMSEY, Ms.; Senior Librarian, The Law Library, Pelican Bay State Prison, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Earnest S. Harris appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-tocourts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly granted summary judgment because Harris failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendant’s conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-54 (1996) (setting forth elements of access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement). We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2

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.