Kamakeeaina v. City & County of Honolulu et al
Filing
22
ORDER DENYING MOTION RE: COMPLIANCE WITH INMATE LEGAL ACTIVITIES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES re 20 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 7/2/12. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Buddy P. Kamakeeaina served by first class mail at the address of record on July 2, 2012.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
BUDDY P. KAMAKEEAINA,
#A0235486,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )
CIV. NO. 11-00770 SOM/RLP
ORDER DENYING MOTION RE:
COMPLIANCE WITH INMATE LEGAL
ACTIVITIES POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES
ORDER DENYING MOTION RE: COMPLIANCE WITH INMATE
LEGAL ACTIVITIES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Plaintiff Buddy P. Kamakeeaina moves for a court order
requiring the Federal Detention Center-Honolulu (“FDC”) and the
Hawaii Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) to comply with prison
policies and procedures governing inmate law library access.
Mot., ECF #20.
For the following reasons, the briefing schedule
set forth in the court’s June 25, 2012, minute order is VACATED
and the Motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff commenced this action
by filing an 88-page typewritten Complaint with 216 pages of
exhibits.
Compl., ECF #1.
The court carefully screened the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1),
notified Plaintiff of its numerous deficiencies, and dismissed it
with leave granted to amend.
Ord. Dismissing Compl. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF #12, dated Mar. 29, 2012.
Plaintiff moved for and received two extensions of time
to file an amended complaint.
ECF #13, #14, #16, #17.
On June
6, 2012, Plaintiff timely filed the First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”).
ECF #18.
The court is currently screening the FAC
pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1); the FAC has not,
therefore, been ordered served on any defendant.
Plaintiff claims that he is being denied access to the
FDC “law library services,” to which he claims he is entitled by
FDC and DPS policies and procedures.
Mot., ECF #20 at 5-6.
Plaintiff does not say that has no access to legal materials.
Rather, Plaintiff complains that he has been denied access to the
typewriter and copying services available to inmates in his
module on Tuesdays between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m.
ECF #20 at 7.
Plaintiff seeks an order directing FDC and DPS prison officials
to comply with their own policies and procedures and allow him to
attend the law library on Tuesdays so that he may use the “law
library services.”
ECF #20.
II.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court has “established beyond doubt that
prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.”
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), limited in part on
other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).
To show
denial of that right, a prisoner must “demonstrate that [his]
nonfrivolous legal claim ha[s] been frustrated or was being
2
impeded” by a prison’s program.
(footnotes omitted).
Lewis, 518 U.S. at 352-53
“Failure to show that a ‘nonfrivolous legal
claim ha[s] been frustrated’ is fatal” to a prisoner’s claim
alleging denial of access to the courts.
Alvarez v. Hill, 518
F.3d 1152, 1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at
353).
In Lewis, the Supreme Court established that a
prisoner’s right of access to the courts does not include “an
abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal
assistance.”
Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.
“[P]rison 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. (quoting Bounds, 430 U.S. at 825).
“It is indisputable that indigent inmates must be
provided at state expense with paper and pen to draft legal
documents with notarial services to authenticate them, and with
stamps to mail them.”
Bounds, 430 U.S. at 824-25.
Plaintiff’s
filings, however, make it clear that Plaintiff is not being
denied adequate stationery, stamps, envelopes, or access to legal
reference materials such that his right of access to the court
has been infringed.
Plaintiff has been able to file his
Complaint, its exhibits, an in forma pauperis application, a
motion for appointment of counsel, two motions for extensions of
3
time, three letters, the FAC, and the present motion.
Plaintiff
has missed no deadlines by the FDC’s alleged denial of his
requests to attend the law library on several Tuesdays so that he
can use the typewriter and copy machine.
Moreover, Plaintiff is
able to handwrite his motions and his FAC and can also hand copy
his documents.
It is clear that Plaintiff has been able to conduct
research and prosecute his claims and cannot show that a nonfrivolous legal claim has been frustrated or impeded.
Plaintiff
is not being denied access to the court by the FDC’s alleged
denial of “law library services,” that is, by the alleged denial
of a typewriter or copying services.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, July 2, 2012.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge
Kamakeeaina v. City and County, et al., Civ. No. 1:11-00770 SOM-RLP; ORDER DENYING
MOTION RE: COMPLIANCE WITH INMATE LEGAL ACTIVITIES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES; psas/Non
disp Ords dmp 2012/Kamakeeianin 11-770 (dny req. to ord. prison to comply with law
lib. policies)
4
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?