CALLENDER v. Guzman; et al., Defendants. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-06No. No. 20-16251

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that Callender failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the destruction of his legal materials because his only cognizable claim had already been dismissed and was no longer pending when the alleged destruction occurred.

Vincent Callender, an incarcerated person, sued correctional officers under federal civil rights law, claiming they destroyed his legal materials and thereby violated his constitutional right to access the courts. He also brought a related conspiracy claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding no genuine dispute that Callender suffered actual harm from the destruction. Callender appealed, arguing the officers' conduct prejudiced his legal efforts.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision. Although incarcerated individuals do have a First Amendment right to court access for claims attacking their sentences or challenging their confinement conditions, that right requires proof of actual prejudice—such as missing a filing deadline or losing the ability to present a claim. At the time the officers destroyed Callender's materials, his federal habeas case had already been dismissed with prejudice and he had been denied a certificate of appealability. Because his only viable claim had already been terminated by the court, the loss of his legal documents could not have impeded his pursuit of that claim. Callender also failed to allege with sufficient detail that he lost access to any specific future claims, so he could not establish the prejudice necessary to win his case.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Scope of incarcerated persons' First Amendment right of court access
Requirement of actual prejudice to prevail on court-access claims
Whether destruction of legal materials caused actionable harm when underlying claim was already dismissed

Procedural posture

Callender appealed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the correctional officers on his court-access and conspiracy claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Vincent Callender appeals the district courts grant of summary judgment to defendant correctional officers J. Ramm and M. Sisneroz on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 court-access claim and derivative conspiracy claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review a district courts grant of summary judgment de novo. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

Incarcerated people have a First Amendment right of access to the courts, but that right is limited to claims “attack[ing] their sentences, directly or collaterally,” or “challeng[ing] the conditions of their confinement.” Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1160 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996)). To prevail on a right-of-access claim, an incarcerated person must show “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the ability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Nevada Dept of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348, 116 S.Ct. 2174). He “must identify a ‘nonfrivolous,’ ‘arguable’ underlying claim” and the specific remedy he lost through “allegations in the complaint sufficient to give fair notice to a defendant.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415-16, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002) (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.3, 116 S.Ct. 2174).

The district court correctly concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to prejudice from the officers’ alleged destruction of Callenders legal materials. See Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076. Of Callenders then-pending claims, he had a First Amendment right to prosecute only his federal habeas case. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354-55, 116 S.Ct. 2174. When Callenders legal materials were destroyed, the district court had already dismissed that case with prejudice and denied a certificate of appealability (COA).

Callender had already applied for a COA in this court, which was later denied.

Callenders loss of his legal materials therefore did not impede his pursuit of his habeas petition. Nor has Callender alleged interference with any contemplated future claim with sufficient specificity to give fair notice to the defendants. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. at 415-16, 122 S.Ct. 2179.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. The defendants’ request for judicial notice of the magistrate judges Final Report and Recommendation, the district courts dismissal order, and the district courts judgment in Callenders federal habeas case is granted.

. Callender does not allege that the destruction of his legal materials impeded him from moving for reconsideration of the COA denial under Fed. R. App. P. 22-1(d).