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NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KITRICH A. POWELL, No. 10-17498
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00093-RCJ-
RAM
v.
JAMES GIBBONS; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Kitrich A. Powell appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging numerous
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Huftile v. Miccio-
*
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).
Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and may affirm on any ground
supported by the record, Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.
1995) (per curiam). We review for an abuse of discretion rulings regarding local
practice and rules. Guam Sasaki Corp. v. Diana’s, Inc., 881 F.2d 713, 716 (9th
Cir. 1989). We affirm.
Dismissal was proper on Powell’s claim concerning the opening of his legal
mail outside of his presence because defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (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). Moreover,
Powell’s allegations that mailroom personnel did not provide postage for his
outgoing mail fail to state a claim because they do not implicate a constitutionally
protected interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
We affirm the dismissal of all Powell’s remaining claims for the reasons
stated by the district court in its order dismissing the case, filed on October 20,
2010. We construe the dismissal of Powell’s state law claims to be without
2 10-17498
prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.
1994).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the court clerk
not to file Powell’s initial complaint because the complaint did not comply with the
local rules. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants
must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).
Powell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-17498