12 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1993), 93-15890, Hernandez v. Gomez

Docket Nº:93-15890.
Citation:12 F.3d 1106
Party Name:Ruben T. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James H. GOMEZ; Charles D. Marshall, Warden; and Briddle, Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:December 03, 1993
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 1106

12 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1993)

Ruben T. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,


James H. GOMEZ; Charles D. Marshall, Warden; and Briddle, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-15890.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 3, 1993

Submitted November 17, 1993. [*]

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. CV-92-01457-JPV; John P. Vukasin, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.



Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.


Ruben T. Hernandez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Hernandez contends that his constitutional rights were violated when defendants allegedly disrupted and excessively delayed the delivery of his personal mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment. Jones v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 968 F.2d 937, 940 (9th Cir.1989). Summary judgment is appropriate only where no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Vucinich v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 739 F.2d 1434, 1436 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam). We affirm.

To state a cause of action under § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived him of a right guaranteed under the Constitution or a federal statute. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir.1988). While prisoners are entitled to the protection of the Constitution, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987), a prison regulation will be upheld if it is reasonably related to a penological interest. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 404 (1989). In the interest of prison security, prison officials may open and inspect non-legal mail addressed to an inmate without the inmate's presence. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 412-13 (1974); Mann v. Adams, 846 F.2d 589, 590-91 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988).


To continue reading