William Earl Degrate appeals the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights suit. Finding no deprivation of Degrate's constitutional rights, we affirm.

The primary issue raised by Degrate on appeal is whether his constitutional rights were violated when he was allegedly denied access to a prison law library. Degrate contends that, without adequate access to the law library, he was unable to represent himself effectively in his criminal case and was thereby denied meaningful access to the courts. Initially, Degrate was represented by appointed counsel in his criminal prosecution. Because he became dissatisfied with his appointed counsel, Degrate obtained permission of the court to proceed pro se. Degrate claims that, while he was a pretrial detainee, the Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office hindered his access to the law library. Degrate further alleges that, on the occasions when he was permitted access to the law library, it was often being used by other inmates as a recreational area.

The United States Supreme Court has clearly warned that "the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) (emphasis added). Guided by Bounds, many federal circuit courts have held that a prisoner who knowingly and voluntarily waives appointed representation by counsel in a criminal proceeding is not entitled to access to a law library. United States v. Smith, 907 F.2d 42, 45 (6th Cir.) (state does not have to provide access to a law library to defendants who wish to represent themselves), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986, 111 S.Ct. 521, 112 L.Ed.2d 533 (1990); United States ex rel George v. Lane, 718 F.2d 226, 233 (7th Cir. 1983) (state was not required to offer a defendant law library access once it offered the defendant assistance of counsel, which the defendant declined); United States v. Wilson, 690 F.2d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 1982) (a prisoner's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation does not include a right to conduct research at the government's expense), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 867, 104 S.Ct. 205, 78 L.Ed.2d 178 (1983); Kelsey v. State of Minn., 622 F.2d 956, 958 (8th Cir. 1980) (holding that prisoner's constitutional right of access to courts did not obligate officials to provide him with an adequate law library where alternative means of satisfying access to courts were available); United States v. Chatman, 584 F.2d 1358, 1360 (4th Cir. 1978) (obligation to provide access to the courts was satisfied by offering the defendant the assistance of counsel). We agree with the rationale adopted by the foregoing circuits and therefore hold that, having rejected the assistance of court-appointed counsel, Degrate had no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing the pro se defense of his criminal trial. Finding no violation of Degrate's federally guaranteed rights on the record before us, we affirm the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Degrate raises two additional issues on appeal: whether the district court (1) erred by dismissing certain claims against the defendants without fair notice to Degrate; and (2) abused its discretion by denying Degrate's motion to recuse the magistrate judge. On the record before us, we find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the district court.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Degrate v. Godwin

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Jun 6, 1996

84 F.3d 768 (5th Cir. 1996)

holding that prisoner did not have right to access law library because he had court-appointed counsel

Summary of this case from Diaz v. Holder

holding that prisoner did not have right to access law library because he had court-appointed counsel

Summary of this case from Bullock v. Cohen

holding that prisoner did not have right to access law library because he had court-appointed counsel

Summary of this case from Roary v. Atl. Cnty. Justice Facility

holding that an inmate who rejected court-appointed counsel had no constitutional right to access a law library, and noting "the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law"

Summary of this case from Morris v. Combs

holding applicant prisoner who declined court-appointed representation had no constitutional right to access a prison law library

Summary of this case from Ex parte Martinez

holding state is not required to provide law library access to defendant who rejects offer of counsel

Summary of this case from Henry v. State

holding state is not required to provide law library access to defendant who rejects offer of counsel

Summary of this case from Henry v. State

affirming dismissal of § 1983 suit by prisoner after concluding that the prisoner "had no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing the pro se defense of his criminal trial"

Summary of this case from Herrington v. Clarke

affirming dismissal of a § 1983 suit by a prisoner because he "had no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing the pro se defense of his criminal trial."

Summary of this case from Muse v. Lawson

affirming dismissal of a § 1983 suit by a prisoner because he "had no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing the pro se defense of his criminal trial."

Summary of this case from Roberts v. Morvac

affirming dismissal of a § 1983 suit by a prisoner because he "had no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing the pro se defense of his criminal trial."

Summary of this case from Cruse v. Burchett

affirming dismissal of a § 1983 suit by a prisoner because he "had no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing the pro se defense of his criminal trial."

Summary of this case from McBee v. Campbell Co. Det. Center

rejecting § 1983 claim for denial of access to the law library for inmate who represented himself in criminal trial

Summary of this case from Schwerdtfeger v. Lamarque

emphasizing that "adequate assistance from persons trained in the law" is sufficient

Summary of this case from Barnes v. Cerliano

agreeing with circuits holding that a defendant who rejects court appointed counsel has no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing a pro se defense at trial

Summary of this case from Ash v. Daniel

agreeing with circuits holding that a defendant who rejects court appointed counsel has no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing a pro se defense at trial

Summary of this case from Ash v. Daniel

In Degrate v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a prisoner who has "rejected the assistance of court-appointed counsel... ha[s] no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing the pro se defense of his criminal trial."

Summary of this case from Fernandez v. Wiles

In Degrate v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768, 769 (5th Cir.1996) the Fifth Circuit held that even an inmate, such as plaintiff, who rejected the assistance of his court-appointed attorney "had no constitutional right to access a law library in preparing the pro-se defense of his criminal trial."

Summary of this case from Harrison v. Cox

agreeing with four other circuits that a prisoner who waives appointed counsel representation in a criminal proceeding is not entitled to access to a law library

Summary of this case from Gilbert v. Heinebecker

stating a prisoner who knowingly and voluntarily waives appointed representation by counsel in a criminal proceeding is not entitled to access to a law library

Summary of this case from State v. Vincent

Degrate v. Godwin

Summary

Opinion

Degrate v. Godwin

Degrate v. Godwin

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Degrate v. Godwin

Summary

Opinion

Degrate v. Godwin

Degrate v. Godwin

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations