Wallace v. Osborne et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., on 11/22/2013. The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se); Daviess County Attorney (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
ANTAWANE MARQUES WALLACE
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13CV-P103-M
DAVID OSBORNE et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff Antawane Marques
Wallace’s pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114
F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
For the reasons that follow, the action will be dismissed.
I.
Plaintiff is a convicted inmate incarcerated in the Daviess County Detention Center
(DCDC). He filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against DCDC and Daviess
County Jailer David Osborne1 in his official capacity.
Plaintiff alleges that he has “been denied the opportunity to recieve Hand written photo
copied [and] printed legal laws from ky State law Books.” He states, “I was told By the Staff
here that I was not Allowed to obtain these documents thru the mail This institution does not
have law Books nor A legal library for inmates.” Plaintiff asserts that this situation places him
and other inmates “at a huge disadvantage” and advises that “I am currently involved in A
Situation where I will Be going Back to Court in A few month And thus far I have Been denied
Any opportunity to obtain access to any of the laws that would Be able to help me in Court.”
1
Plaintiff spelled Defendant’s last name as “Osbourne.” The Court takes judicial notice
that the Daviess County Jailer spells his last name “Osborne.”
As relief, Plaintiff seeks $500,000 in monetary damages.
II.
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers,
and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under
§ 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore, 114 F.3d at 604.
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as
frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327.
In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing
Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). “A pleading that
offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
2
not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
III.
Courts have repeatedly recognized the constitutionally protected right of meaningful
access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977) (“It is now established
beyond doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.”). Meaningful
access, however, will vary with the circumstances, and officials are to be accorded discretion in
determining how that right is to be administered. Id. at 830-33; John L. v. Adams, 969 F.2d 228,
233-34 (6th Cir. 1992). The right of access guarantees access to the courts and not to a prison
library. Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 932 (6th Cir. 1985). An inmate who claims his access
to the courts was denied merely because he was denied access to the prison library, or certain
books, fails to state a claim. Id. Rather, the inmate “must go one step further and 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, 351 (1996). In other words, a plaintiff
must demonstrate an actual injury. Id. He must show, “for example, that the inadequacy of the
prison law library or the available legal assistance caused such actual injury as the late filing of a
court document or the dismissal of an otherwise meritorious claim.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92
F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 356 (advising that no actual injury occurs
without a showing that such a claim “has been lost or rejected, or that the presentation of such a
claim is currently being prevented”). “Examples of actual prejudice to pending or contemplated
litigation include having a case dismissed, being unable to file a complaint, and missing a
court-imposed deadline.” Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 578 (6th Cir. 2005).
3
Furthermore, the underlying action must have asserted a non-frivolous claim, Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. at 352-53, and “the underlying cause of action . . . is an element that must be described
in the complaint, just as much as allegations must describe the official acts frustrating the
litigation.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). “Like any other element of an
access claim, the underlying cause of action and its lost remedy must be addressed by allegations
in the complaint sufficient to give fair notice to a defendant.” Id. at 416.
Here, while Plaintiff alleges the inability to obtain “legal laws” and no “law Books nor A
Legal library for inmates” at the DCDC, he fails to plead any actual injury to an underlying, nonfrivolous claim. He alleges only that he will be “going Back to Court in A few month” and have
been denied “access to any of the laws that would Be able to help me in Court.” Plaintiff does
not identify the type of case, describe the underlying cause of action, or allege that any claim is
currently being prevented. He, therefore, fails to state a denial-of-access-to-courts claim.
For this reason, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order.
Date:
November 22, 2013
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Daviess County Attorney
4414.005
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?