William Dunne v. D. Smith

Ninth Circuit

William Dunne v. D. Smith

486 F. App'x 666

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 2012

Docket11-16342

StatusUnpublished

This text of 486 F. App'x 666 (William Dunne v. D. Smith) 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

William Dunne v. D. Smith, 486 F. App'x 666 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner William D. Dunne appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that a prison policy restricting access to newspapers and magazines in the Special Housing Unit violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C *667 § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dunne failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the policy is not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See id. at 901 (“[A] regulation that impinges upon a prisoner’s constitutional rights is valid if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Nor did Dunne raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was actually denied access to the law library and reading material. See W. Radio Servs. Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 578 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2009) (discussing the requirements of a Bivens action, including the deprivation of a federal right).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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 **

Federal prisoner William D. Dunne appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that a prison policy restricting access to newspapers and magazines in the Special Housing Unit violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C *667 § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dunne failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the policy is not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See id. at 901 (“[A] regulation that impinges upon a prisoner’s constitutional rights is valid if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Nor did Dunne raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was actually denied access to the law library and reading material. See W. Radio Servs. Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 578 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2009) (discussing the requirements of a Bivens action, including the deprivation of a federal right).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 F. App'x 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-dunne-v-d-smith-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack