concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law
How later courts described this case
- concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK DEWAYNE PORTER, No. 09-35524
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00605-CL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEAN HILL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Mark Dewayne Porter, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his
legal mail was opened outside his presence in violation of his constitutional rights.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s
request for oral argument is denied.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bahrampour v.
Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record, San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d
1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity
because the law concerning the opening of prisoners’ legal mail outside their
presence was not clearly established at the time the alleged violations occurred.
See Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (concluding that state officers
were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly
established law); Sherman v. MacDougall, 656 F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir. 1981)
(reserving issue of whether there is a constitutional violation where a prison
official opens a prisoner’s legal mail outside the prisoner’s presence).
Porter’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Porter’s “Motion for Stay of Obayence” [sic] is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-35524