Pugh v. Terhune

Ninth Circuit

Pugh v. Terhune

43 F. App'x 144

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 2002

DocketNo. 02-15355

StatusPublished

This text of 43 F. App'x 144 (Pugh v. Terhune) 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

Pugh v. Terhune, 43 F. App'x 144 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Rowland Pugh, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing his civil rights action and denying his motion for reconsideration in his action alleging that prison officials interfered with his mail and refused to process a grievance because it was untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

Because Pugh failed to allege that the prison’s failure to mail his letter to the American Civil Liberties Union or its rejection of his grievance as untimely caused actual injury, the district court properly dismissed these claims. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Rowland Pugh, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing his civil rights action and denying his motion for reconsideration in his action alleging that prison officials interfered with his mail and refused to process a grievance because it was untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

Because Pugh failed to allege that the prison’s failure to mail his letter to the American Civil Liberties Union or its rejection of his grievance as untimely caused actual injury, the district court properly dismissed these claims. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 F. App'x 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugh-v-terhune-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack