Daniel v. Blanas

Full title: Don DANIEL, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. Louie BLANAS, Sacramento County…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 11, 2002

52 F. App'x 394 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

52 Fed.Appx. 394 (9th Cir. 2002) Don DANIEL, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. Louie BLANAS, Sacramento County Sheriff; et al., Defendants--Appellees. No. 02-16519. D.C. No. CV-01-01342-WBS. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. December 11, 2002

Submitted December 2, 2002. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding.

Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

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

Don Daniel, a California state prisoner formerly in the custody of the Sacramento County Sheriff, appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the sheriff's officers improperly opened his legal mail and retained his legal materials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Because only mail from a prisoner's lawyer is legal mail, the district court properly concluded that Daniel failed to state a claim with respect to mail from courts and the Sheriff's Office. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir.1996), as amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir.1998) (order). With respect to the one letter from his counsel, Daniel failed to state a constitutional claim because he did not allege an actual injury to his access to the courts or to his right to counsel in his criminal case. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

The district court properly concluded that Daniel failed to state an actionable claim against either Sheriff Blanas or Sacramento County. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (stating that section 1983 defendants must have personal

Page 395.

involvement in the alleged violation); Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982) (concluding that actions, practices or policies of a governmental body must be directly connected to the alleged constitutional violation).

Daniel's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.