Opinion
Civil Action 00-0117-CB-L
December 1, 2001
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4). It is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii).
I. Nature of Proceedings .
Plaintiffs complaint chiefly alleges a denial of access to the courts. Plaintiff named as Defendants Charlie Jones, Warden of Holman Correctional Facility ("Holman"); Kim Thomas, counsel for the Alabama Department of Corrections; and Naomi Lyons, an officer. There are several other actions on this Court's docket that are similar to Plaintiff's action. The Defendants are the same in each action, and each action concerns the Holman law library and the inability to obtain inmate McConico's legal assistance due to his incarceration in segregation. The actions that remain pending and are now before the Court for screening are: Rickey Rankin v. Jones, et al, No. 00-01 19-BH-M; Jack King v. Jones, et al., No. 00-0129-BH-S; Nathaniel Hayes v. Jones.et al, No. 00-0134-CB-L; Etries Hutton v. Jones. et al., No. 00-0143- RV-S; Gregory Boykins v. Jones. et al., No. 00-0145-CB-M; and James Lee v. Jones, et al., No. 00-0153-BH-C.
The following is a description of Plaintiff's claims in this action.
In the complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff alleges that on October 23, 1999, inmate James McConico, who has been trained by the Alabama Department of Corrections as a paralegal, began assisting Plaintiff and other inmates in preparing their pleadings for court. On December 28, 1999, inmate McConico was placed in segregation by Warden Jones, and the law library was then closed for several days without any notice being given to inmates. By closing the law library and confining inmate McConico to segregation "without just cause, " access to the courts was allegedly obstructed for Plaintiff and other inmates, "some of whom had immediate deadlines." At the time of Plaintiff's filing of this action, inmate McConico had not been released from segregation. Plaintiff alleges that he and other inmates therefore do not have access to inmate McConico's expertise on their "momentous problems" due to Defendant Jones not allowing inmate McConico to work on Plaintiff's case and other inmates' cases. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Jones has threatened to confine any one who asks that inmate McConico be allowed to assist him.
Plaintiff maintains Defendant Thomas has trained inmates to be paralegals and law clerks at all of Alabama's correctional facilities except for Holman. Plaintiff alleges that this has resulted in the Holman law library being inadequately staffed.
Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Jones unduly obstructs access to the courts and denies Plaintiff and other inmates equal protection of the law when he requires the prison law library be closed at 6:30 p.m. while he allows the hobbycraft shop, Alcoholic Anonymous ("A. A.") meetings, and religious meetings to continue until 10:00 p.m. and permits the hobbycraft shop to be open 24 hours a day on the weekends. Plaintiff argues that hobbycraft and A. A. are privileges, "while the law library is a constitutional right."
Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Jones places an undue burden on Plaintiff and other inmates by his refusal to expand the law library in order to accommodate a complete set of law books and more persons. Plaintiff maintains that presently old law books are packed and stored so space can be made for new editions and that there is space for nine inmates with only eight inmates being able to sit at the dining table. Plaintiff contends that the dining table is used as a desk with space for each inmate that is the size of a food tray. Plaintiff further maintains that Defendant Jones has threatened to lock in segregation any inmate who is caught providing information to another inmate to help him litigate his case.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Jones, Thomas, and Lyons refuse to supply the law library with sufficient typewriters to accommodate 800 inmates, photocopiers, and free legal mail. Plaintiff alleges that two, free stamps a week is meager when courts require several copies of documents, e.g., three copies of the nine-page Rule 32 petition which costs $1.50 to send.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Lyons has no training that would enable her to understand the needs of inmate litigants. In her position as supervisor of the law library, Defendant Lyons places an undue burden on prison litigants by not replacing law books with pages missing, by not providing sufficient ribbon for the electric typewriters, by refusing to supply ribbon for the manual typewriter, and by refusing to supply white-out and carbon paper.
For relief, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to hire a trained paralegal to supervise the law library and to bring in a paralegal to train inmates in the law; to upgrade the law library with up-to-date books and sufficient typewriters to accommodate a prison population of 1000 inmates; to timely supply the law library with paper, white-out, and typewriter ribbon; and to expand the law library to accommodate a complete set of law books and more inmates.
II. Standards of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e(2)(R) .
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a claim may be dismissed as "frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A claim is frivolous as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants are immune from suit, id., at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833, the claim seeks to enforce a right which clearly does not exist, id., or there is an affirmative defense that would defeat the claim, such as the statute of limitations, Clark v. Georgia Pardons Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n. 2 (11th Cir. 1990). Judges are accorded "not only the authority to dismiss [as frivolous a claim based on indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. Moreover, a complaint may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted "only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).
The predecessor to this section was 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d).
III. Discussion A. Access to Courts Claim .
The right implicated by Plaintiff's allegations is his right of access to the courts. In Bounds v Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), the Supreme Court held that "the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to . . . provid[e] prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." In the subsequent decision of Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2179, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), the Supreme Court clarified an inmate's claim for denial of access to courts by requiring that an inmate show a harm that has been suffered or will imminently be suffered in order to have standing to bring an access-to-courts claim. An actual harm is established by an inmate showing that a direct appeal of his conviction, a habeas petition, or a civil rights action vindicating a basic constitutional right was frustrated or impeded and that this action was nonfrivolous.Id. at 353-54, 116 S.Ct. at 2181-82; cf. Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1291 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that actual injury must be shown "in the pursuit of specific types of nonfrivolous cases: direct or collateral attacks on sentences and challenges to conditions of confinement."). "Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." Lewis, 518 at 355, 116 S.Ct. at 2182.
The Lewis Court explained that Bounds did not dispense with the actual-injury requirement, as it is a constitutional prerequisite. Id. at 351-52, 116 S.Ct. at 2180. The Lewis Court further elaborated that "prison law libraries and legal assistance programs are not ends in themselves, but only the means for ensuring "a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts."' Id. at 351, 116 S.Ct. at 2180 (quoting Bounds, 430 U.S. at 825, 97 S.Ct. at 1496). The Lewis Court observed that the Bounds Court recognized that the availability of a prison law library was only one of the ways to ensure meaningful access to the courts. Id.
Court-provided forms where an inmate only has to provide the facts and no legal analysis was noted with approval by the Lewis Court as being an acceptable component for providing access to the courts. 518 U.S. at 352, 116 S.Ct. at 2181.
"Because Bounds did not create an abstract, free-standing right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is sub-par in some theoretical sense." Id. Rather, to establish actual injury an inmate must demonstrate that his efforts to pursue a direct appeal of his conviction, a habeas petition, or a civil rights action vindicating a basic constitutional right were frustrated or impeded by an actual deficiency in the library or in a legal assistance program or by an official's action and that his action was not frivolous. Id; Bass v.Singletary 143 F.3d 1442, 1445 (11th Cir. 1998). An actual injury may be shown by establishing that an action was dismissed on account of a technical requirement which was unknown to the inmate due to deficiencies in the prison's assistance facilities or that a claim could not be presented to a court because an inmate was so stymied by the law library's inadequacies that the inmate could not prepare a complaint. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351, 116 S.Ct. at 2180.
In the present action, Plaintiff's allegations do not identify a specific action in which he has been injured or will be injured on account of one of the alleged conditions about which he complains. Plaintiff simply complains that inmate McConico was not allowed to assist him on his "case." The nature of Plaintiff's "case" is not described, nor has Plaintiff shown that this "case" is non-frivolous. Plaintiff has, therefore, failed to establish that he has suffered a harm or will suffer a harm in a type of action delineated in Lewis v. Casey, supra, in order to have standing to bring an access-to-courts claim. Plaintiffs claims of inadequate and unqualified staffing; lack of training; inadequate space for law books and persons; inadequate law books; insufficient typewriters, typewriter ribbon, and free postage; lack of photocopiers, white-out, carbon paper, and replacement books; threats of segregation confinement if an inmate assists another inmate with litigation; and limited operating hours for the law library all fail due to Plaintiff's failure to establish a harm that he has suffered or will suffer in a non-frivolous direct appeal of his conviction, habeas proceeding, or civil rights action vindicating a basic constitutional right. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for the denial of access to the courts.
B. Equal Protection Claim .
Furthermore, Plaintiff complains that Defendant Jones has violated his and other inmates' right to equal protection by closing the law library at 6:30 p.m. while allowing hobby craft, A. A. meetings, and religious meetings to meet until 10:00 p.m. and hobbycraft to meet for 24 hours a day on weekends. In order to prevail upon an equal protection claim, a plaintiff need prove not only that a similarly situated person was treated differently, but also that he was the victim of intentional discrimination. Pearson v. Macon-Bibb County Hosp. Auth., 952 F.2d 1274, 1281 n. 8 (11th Cir. 1992); see Damiano v. Florida Parole Probation Comm'n, 785 F.2d 929, 932-33 (11th Cir. 1986) (finding that the inmate must establish that he is similarly situated to another who has received the desired treatment and that he has been invidiously discriminated against on the basis of a constitutionally protected interest). In the present action, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is similarly situated to another inmate or that he has been intentionally discriminated against for a constitutionally protected reason. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state an equal protection claim upon which relief can be granted.
IV. Conclusion .
Based upon the foregoing reason, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii).
Any claims that Plaintiff may have brought on behalf of other inmates are not addressed in this Report and Recommendation because Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a claim for another prisoner.Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986); see Bass v. Singletary, 143 F.3d 1442, 1446 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that prisoners do not have standing to bring other prisoners' claims for the denial of access to the courts); Adams v. James, 784 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 1986) (same).
The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the Report and Recommendation.