Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:03-CV-065-C
September 23, 2003
ORDER
Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants TDCJ-ID, Director TDCJ-ID, Bruce Zeller, Warden at the Montford Unit, and Marshall Phillips, the Law Librarian at the Montford Unit. Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Montford Unit at the time he filed his complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants denied him access to the courts.
On May 21, 2003, Plaintiff was ordered to answer a Questionnaire within 20 days from the date of the Order. Plaintiff sought an extension of time in which to file his answers, and he was granted an extension until July 21, 2003.
Plaintiff was advised that if he sought to raise claims in addition to his access-to-courts claim, he would be required to file an amended complaint in which he specifically stated the name of each defendant, the prison unit where the incident occurred, the prison unit where the defendant was located, the dates involved, and specific facts as to the acts or omissions of each named defendant. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint; therefore, the only claims before the Court are his claims alleging a denial of access to the courts.
Plaintiff did not file his response to the Court's questionnaire until September 12, 2003. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's civil rights complaint and his answers to the questionnaire. Plaintiff acknowledges that he did not have a pending case challenging his sentence or the conditions of his confinement. He also states that he "was and still is contemplating in filing suits, but is unable to discover his rights." According to Plaintiff, he has "been contemplating in filing two or three suits 1983 to vendicate (sic) his civil rights."
Plaintiff acknowledges that he has a history of filing civil actions in the United States District Courts. Further, the Court takes judicial notice of at least nine (9) other civil rights actions that Plaintiff has filed since 1995. See Exhibit A attached hereto. He also sought to intervene in one civil rights case which had been filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Although Plaintiff may not have prevailed on any of his claims, he has not been prevented from filing complaints challenging the conditions of his confinement. In addition to the cases filed in the District Court, Plaintiff filed appeals in at least six (6) of those case. See Exhibit B attached hereto.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court is required to dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The right of prisoners' access to the courts "encompasses only a reasonably adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims challenging their convictions or conditions of confinement." Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding that "five hours of library time a week will not result in a violation" of the right of access to the courts); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (one day or 8 hours of access to a law library a month found to be constitutional).
A prisoner is required to "demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996); Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998) ("without proving an actual injury, a prisoner cannot prevail on an access-to-the-courts claim."). Thus, Plaintiff must allege an actual injury. Id."[A]n 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. Plaintiff is required to show that his attempt to pursue a challenge to his confinement or a direct or indirect attack on his sentence was hindered. Id. Thus, Plaintiff must allege an actual injury. Id.
In Lewis v. Casey, 116 S.Ct. at 2182, the Supreme Court found that the right of access to the courts
does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves into litigating engines capable of filing everything from shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims. The tools it requires to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their confinement. Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that he suffered an actual injury and has failed to show that any action on the parts of the Defendants resulted in a violation of his right of access to the courts; therefore, Plaintiff's complaint and all claims alleged therein should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. Any pending motions are denied.
SO ORDERED.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
This dismissal shall count as a qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996).
A copy of this Order shall be mailed to the Office of General Counsel, TDCJ-ID Litigation Support, P.O. Box 13084, Austin, Texas 78711 and to TDCJ Local Funds Division, P.O. Box 629, Huntsville Texas 77342-0629.
Exhibit 17 U.S. Party/Case Index Civil Name Search Results 11 Total Party matches for selection JOINER, CLAUDE for FIFTH CIRCUIT Search Complete Mon Sep 22 13:38:49 CDT 2003 Selections 1 through 11 (Page 1) Download(1 pages $ 0.00) Name Court Case No Filed