925 F.2d 1472
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Abraham T. YANG, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Daniel J. McCARTHY, Director, California Department of
Corrections, et al, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 90-55121.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 8, 1991.*
Decided Feb. 14, 1991.
Before CHAMBERS, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Plaintiff Abraham Yang has not produced any evidence that defendants McCarthy, Ammano and Ochoa were responsible for the delay in the copying and mailing of Yang's documents or acted with malice or deliberate indifference to his rights. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1986). Nor has Yang produced anything to suggest these three defendants were responsible for the prison's photocopying policy. Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in their favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242 (1986).
Yang also failed to produce any evidence that defendant Estelle personally participated in photocopying his documents. However, Yang did produce evidence that Estelle, as warden of California Men's Colony (CMC), was responsible for the photocopying policies.1 Estelle's Answers To First Set Of Interrogatories Propounded By Plaintiff, C.R. 56, at 40 ("The Warden has overall authority over legal services in the institution."); Declaration of Wayne Estelle, C.R. 69, at 23 ("At CMC, I have implemented policies and procedures regarding the photocopying and mailing of legal documents."). Yang's claim fails nonetheless: There's no evidence that CMC's policies caused the delay in photocopying Yang's legal documents. Instead, the delay resulted from the limited availability of copying machines coupled with the mail room staff's mistaken belief that Yang's documents were court transcripts. Order Adopting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of United States Magistrate, C.R. 83; Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate, C.R. 82, at 5. Because Yang failed to establish that Estelle's policies caused the alleged harm or that Estelle personally participated in the photocopying of his documents, summary judgment was also appropriate as to Estelle.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
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
Contrary to appellee's assertions, Yang's complaint quite clearly alleges that the prison's photocopying rules and policies deprived him of his right of access to the courts. Amended Complaint, C.R. 64, at 4 ("This is the policy and rule of the CMC-E Institution (exh. D1)"); id. at 7 ("Also the right deprivation was caused by the policy and rule of CMC supervisor[s] ..."). He also alleges that CMC continues to violate inmates' right of access to the courts by continuing to implement its photocopying policy. Id. at 6 ("... the rule of CMC Institution restricted (and ... still ... [restricts] inmate ... legal copy[ing] [to] 'Tuesday thru Friday[,] 3:00 to 4:00 pm[']."