Cooley v. Mattern et al
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to 28 USC 1915A. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/25/11. (smp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
OTTO A. COOLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
M. MATTERN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:11-CV-406
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the complaint filed by Otto
A. Cooley, a pro se prisoner, on September 19, 2011. For the
reasons set forth below, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
BACKGROUND
Otto A. Cooley, a pro se prisoner, filed this complaint in the
Marshall Circuit Court. The defendants removed it because it
asserts federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Cooley alleges
that he was denied the ability to browse the law library and was
required to use “a mail-delivery system to apply for any research
materials” (DE # 1 at 4) while he was housed in the Marshall County
Jail from June 21, 2010, to March 16, 2011. Cooley states that he
was appointed a public defender on June 29, 2010, and that though
he wanted to fire him, he did not. Instead he plead guilty and was
sentenced to 13 years. Cooley alleges that he was denied forms on
which to present his filings to the state court because the jail
did not have a form for a motion to suppress or for firing his
attorney.
DISCUSSION
Even though this case was originally filed in the Marshall
Circuit Court and removed to this court, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A mandates
that this court review it before allowing Cooley to proceed.
On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint, if the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
provides for the dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a
complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when
addressing a motion under RULE 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463
F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). “In order to state a claim under §
1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of
a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted
under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th
Cir. 2006). “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed,
and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
-2-
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). However, a plaintiff “pleads himself out of
court when it would be necessary to contradict the complaint in
order to prevail on the merits.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d
1074, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008).
“[A]ccess
to
legal
materials
is
required
only
for
unrepresented litigants . . ..” Campbell v. Clarke, 481 F.3d 967,
968 (7th Cir. 2007). Cooley clearly states in his complaint that he
was represented by a public defender and that his interest in using
the law library was solely in connection with his criminal case.
Therefore, he was not entitled to access to legal materials or
forms. Furthermore, even if he had not been represented, he had
access to legal materials via “a mail-delivery system.” There is no
federal constitutional right to browse the library; indeed, there
is no “abstract, freestanding right to a law library . . ..” Lewis
v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Thus, even if Cooley had not
been represented and had not had access to legal materials via “a
mail-delivery system,” in order to prevail on a claim for having
been
denied
“demonstrate
access
that
to
state
the
law
action
library,
[caused]
he
would
some
actual
have
to
concrete
injury.” May v. Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876, 883 (7th Cir. 2000). Here,
Cooley suffered no such injury.
Though Cooley argues that his attorney did not help him and
was ineffective, he does not allege that either were caused by
-3-
state action nor by his lack of access to the jail law library –
nor would it be reasonable to infer that they were. He argues that
he wanted to fire his attorney, but he did not. Though he says that
he wanted forms from the law library, he states that he wrote to
the court without a form. Clearly he had the ability to write and
tell the state court that he wanted to fire his attorney, represent
himself, and conduct legal research. Doing so would have required
neither a form nor physical access to the law library, nor even a
“mail-delivery system.” In addition, even if he had been unable to
write to the court, he could have spoken to the court during his
guilty plea hearing and explained that his attorney was not helping
him and that he wanted to fire him and conduct his own legal
research.
Because Cooley had no federal constitutional right to access
the jail law library, the complaint does not state a claim on which
relief can be granted and this case must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
DATED:
October 25, 2011
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
-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?