Stephen Bishop, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James P. Mcfadden, Et Al., Defendant-Appellee., 1 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1993)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (August 03, 1993)

Docket number: 93-15062

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/stephen-bishop-james-mcfadden-defendant-36057088
Id. vLex: VLEX-36057088

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Supreme Court - Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - David D. Darring, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry Kincheloe, Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary, Defendant-Appellee., 783 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1986)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

Before BROWNING, TANG and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Arizona state prisoner Stephen Bishop appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec . 1983 complaint against three prison officials. Bishop is the legal assistant for protective segregation inmates incarcerated in the maximum security facility in Florence, Arizona. He claims that the defendants violated his rights and those of the prisoners he represents by refusing to provide facilities for confidential communication and by providing insufficient opportunities for the transfer of legal materials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec . 1291. We affirm.

Bishop's arguments are somewhat unclear, but "we must liberally construe [his] pro se claims." Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1986). To have standing to challenge the alleged impediments himself, Bishop "must 'show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.' " Id. at 877 (quoting Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982)). We agree with the district court that Bishop has alleged no cognizable injury. He claims that confidential communication is necessary to protect him from "having to divulge information given to him in confidence;" however, he has no right to such protection, because in Arizona "[t]here are no privileged communications between a defendant and his 'jailhouse lawyer.' " See State v. Rivera, 811 P.2d 354, 356 (Ariz.1990).

Bishop also claims that the restrictions on the transfer of legal materials deny him "the right to provide proper and adequate legal assistance" to the inmates in protective segregation. However, because Bishop himself has suffered no legally cognizable injury, he has no standing to assert their third-party rights. Darring, 783 F.2d at 877-78.

AFFIRMED.

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 36-3