Haraszewski v. Brannan et al
Filing
75
ORDER denying 74 Motion for Adequate Law Library Access. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis on 7/20/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
H. Dymitr Haraszewski,
Case No. 10cv546 LAB (PCL)
13
14
v.
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR ADEQUATE LAW
LIBRARY ACCESS
15
Lisa Brannan et al.,
(Doc. 74)
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking unlimited priority user status access to his law library at
Mule Creek State Prison. (Doc. 74.)
An prisoner has a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts. Bounds v.
21
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-21 (1977). Law library access serves as one of the means of ensuring
22
access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). “[T]he Constitution does not
23
guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to a law library. Prison officials of necessity must
24
regulate the time, manner, and place in which library facilities are used.” Linquist v. Idaho State
25
Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985). An inmate claiming that his right of
26
access to the courts will be violated due to inadequate law library access must show that access
27
was so limited as to be unreasonable and the inadequate access will cause actual injury.
28
Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994).
Here, Plaintiff has provided no basis for this court to interfere with the prison’s
1
administration of its law library. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the limited amount of
2
time that he has access to the library is unreasonable or that he will suffer actual injury from not
3
being able to prosecute his case adequately. Thus, his motion is DENIED.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 DATED: July 20, 2012
6
7
8
Peter C. Lewis
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10cv546 LAB (PCL)
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?