*431 MEMORANDUM **

James Edward Proctor, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging interference with his access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We vacate and remand.

The district court ruled that Proctor could not state an access-to-courts claim because “an inmate does not have a constitutional right of access to the courts to appeal a denial of a habeas petition.” Recently, in Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011), we held “that prisoners have a light under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement to conclusion without active interference by prison officials.” Id. at 1103 (explaining the difference between the “right to assistance” and “interference” analyses for a prisoner’s access-to-courts claim). Because the district court did not have the benefit of Silva when it dismissed Proctor’s action, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Proctor shall bear his own costs on appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.