Martin v. Ramos

Ninth Circuit

Martin v. Ramos

212 F. App'x 637

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 2006

DocketNo. 06-15641

StatusPublished

This text of 212 F. App'x 637 (Martin v. Ramos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Ramos, 212 F. App'x 637 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Ronnie S. Martin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendant [638]*638retaliated against him by denying his request to correspond with his brother. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Martin brought this action seeking an injunction requiring that the defendant allow him to correspond with his brother, Hubert D. Martin. Martin’s request for correspondence was approved, and since June 16, 2005, Martin has had permission to correspond with Hubert D. Martin. We agree with the district court that Martin’s action is moot. See Wiggins v. Rushen, 760 F.2d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.1985) (“where the complainant was no longer subject to the allegedly illegal activity, the complaint for an injunction became moot”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Ronnie S. Martin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendant [638]*638retaliated against him by denying his request to correspond with his brother. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Martin brought this action seeking an injunction requiring that the defendant allow him to correspond with his brother, Hubert D. Martin. Martin’s request for correspondence was approved, and since June 16, 2005, Martin has had permission to correspond with Hubert D. Martin. We agree with the district court that Martin’s action is moot. See Wiggins v. Rushen, 760 F.2d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.1985) (“where the complainant was no longer subject to the allegedly illegal activity, the complaint for an injunction became moot”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 F. App'x 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-ramos-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack