Opinion
No. 03-CV-6501L.
September 3, 2004
DECISION ORDER
By order dated March 31, 2004, the above-captioned matter has been referred to the undersigned for the supervision of pre-trial discovery and the hearing and disposition of all non-dispositive motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(A) and (B). (Docket # 17).
Currently before the Court is plaintiff's pro se "request for legal materials." Specifically, plaintiff asserts that he has been unconstitutionally denied access to the courts because the Southport Correctional Facility — the facility in which he is housed — has failed to provide him with the legal books and supplies that he requested. Plaintiff therefore requests that this Court direct defendants to provide such materials. (Docket # 5).
The United States Constitution guarantees prisoners a meaningful right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). Reasonable access to a law library is one means of ensuring a prisoner's access to the courts. Id. at 351; see Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). Law library access, however, need not be without restraint. See Shepherd v. Fraisher, 1999 WL 713839, *4 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("unlimited, unrestricted or unmanaged access at the demand of a prisoner is not required"); Jermosen v. Coughlin, 1995 WL 144155, *4 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (delaying inmate's access to law library did not violate constitutional right in absence of proof that delay interfered with access to courts).
Here, plaintiff merely asserts in general terms that he was denied legal materials. While plaintiff has submitted to this Court copies of numerous grievances filed between September and November 2003, he has not identified any particular books or other materials that were denied him in relation to his pending claim. Such a general assertion is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. See Shepherd v. Fraisher, 1999 WL 713839 at * 6 ("vague and conclusory allegations" of denial of access to law library are insufficient to raise factual issues). Furthermore, defendants have submitted to the Court copies of the Southport Law Library Distribution Sheets. These records reveal that a substantial number of books have been provided to plaintiff during the course of this litigation. (Docket # 22, Ex. D). Indeed, according to the records, during the three-month period between January and March 2004, plaintiff received legal materials on approximately seventy separate occasions. ( Id.). Judged on this record, I find that plaintiff has failed to allege adequately a claim that he was denied his constitutional right of access to the courts.
Moreover, even if plaintiff could establish that he was denied legal materials, he has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from such denial. "In order to establish a violation of a right of access to [the] courts, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant caused `actual injury,' . . . i.e., took or was responsible for actions that `hindered [a plaintiff's] efforts to pursue a legal claim.'" Monsky v. Moraghan, 127 F.3d 243, 247 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 351), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 823 (1998). According to the Supreme Court, the requirement that a plaintiff suffered an actual injury "`derives ultimately from the doctrine of standing.'" Casey, 518 U.S. at 349; Monsky v. Moraghan, 127 F.3d at 247 (quoting Casey, 518 U.S. at 349); see Shepherd v. Fraisher, 1999 WL 713839 at * 5 ("where it is alleged that access to a law library has actually been denied, a plaintiff must allege that the deprivation proximately caused some actual prejudice or denial of a legal claim") (citing Casey, 518 U.S. at 351-52); Warburton v. Underwood, 2 F. Supp. 2d 306, 312 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) ("in order to state a constitutional claim, a plaintiff must make a showing that he has suffered, or will immediately suffer, actual harm, that is, that he was hindered in his efforts to pursue a legal claim") (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff has failed to make any showing that he was prejudiced by the alleged deprivation of legal materials. To the contrary, the many filings made by plaintiff since the inception of this case demonstrate that he has not been prevented from litigating his claim. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for legal materials (Docket # 5) is DENIED without prejudice at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.