Gosztyla v. Gruenwald

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD GOSZTYLA, No. 25-2099 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:22-cv-01725-KJM-CSK v. MEMORANDUM* E. GRUENWALD, Officer,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 31, 2026**

Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Richard Gosztyla appeals pro se from the district

court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Officer Gruenwald in this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation and access-to-courts

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of

* 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). summary judgment de novo. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d

802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, we determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material

fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.”

DeFries v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 104 F.4th 1091, 1104 (9th Cir. 2024). We affirm.

“[P]risoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.” Bounds v.

Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a violation of this right, an inmate

must show “actual injury.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). Because

there is no “freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot

establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library

or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id. at 351.

“Actual injury” means “actual prejudice” to the prisoner’s litigation, “such as the

inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v.

Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gosztyla’s access-to-

courts claim because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on

whether Gruenwald caused an actual injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gosztyla’s

retaliation claim because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on

whether Gruenwald took an adverse action against Gosztyla based on his protected

2 25-2099 conduct.1 See Moore v. Garnand, 83 F.4th 743, 750 (9th Cir. 2023) (setting forth

elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); see also Pratt v. Rowland, 65

F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that an inmate has the burden of

“proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he

complains” or that the conduct was “not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such

goals” (citation modified)).

AFFIRMED.

1 To discredit Gruenwald and create an issue of fact, Gosztyla contends that Gruenwald and other “witnesses” perjured themselves but the statements he points to, and his conclusory allegations, do not create a genuine dispute of material fact.

3 25-2099