Taylor v. Adams et al
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 74 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 11/6/2012. cc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11CV-164-R
MARK A. TAYLOR
v.
BILL ADAMS et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in the McCracken County Jail, is presently litigating a
conditions-of-confinement claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the Court
upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Copies of Legal Text from the Law
Library and to Prohibit Obstruction of Justice by Defendants (DN 74). The Defendants have
responded in opposition to the motion (DN 75). The Court has referred this matter to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for ruling on all discovery motions (DN 53).
For the reasons below, the motion (DN 74) is DENIED.
Right of Access to the Courts
The Plaintiff indicates that he has located an article in the McCracken County Jail library
identified as “60 Penal and Correction[al] [Institutions], American Jurisprudence 16A.” He seeks
a Court order requiring the Defendants to provide him a copy of this text at the “general rate” of ten
cents per page (DN 74-1) inasmuch as he “has been forced to hand copy [this] volumous (sic.) text
in [his] limited 1-hour library period ... once a week” (DN 74, p. 1).
It is well established that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts and this
right contemplates, at a minimum, that prison officials provide inmates with paper and pen to draft
legal documents, notary services to authenticate the papers, and stamps to mail them. Bounds v.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824-25 (1977). In addition, officials must provide meaningful access to the
courts through adequate law libraries or assistance from persons trained in the law. Id. at 828.
An indigent prisoner’s constitutional right to legal resources and materials is not, however,
without limit. In order to state a viable constitutional claim of interference with access to the courts,
a plaintiff must show “actual injury.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). A plaintiff must
plead and demonstrate that the lack of legal materials has hindered or is presently hindering his
efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim. Id. at 351.
The Sixth Circuit has held that “the right of access does not include a per se right to
photocopies in whatever amount a prisoner requests.” Courtemanche v. Gregels, 79 Fed. Appx. 115,
117 (6th Cir.2003). This Court (Thomas B. Russell) rejected a right-of-access claim because the
claimant “has not alleged that a non-frivolous claim has been lost/rejected or currently is being
prevented due to ... prison staff’s refusal to photocopy a news article” Baze v. Huddleston, 2011 WL
1838621 at *2 (W.D.Ky.). Other courts within this circuit have reached similar conclusions. See,
for example, Baldwin v. Brandle, 2012 WL 895293 at *2 (N.D.Ohio) (“While he contends
Defendants refused to make copies of a motion for him, nothing in the record demonstrates Plaintiff
was prevented from pursuing his underlying case”) and Stackhouse v. Peake, 2007 WL 3047248 at
*3 (W.D.Mich.) (“Plaintiff does not allege that he suffered any injury as a result of the alleged denial
of ... photocopies”).
The Plaintiff has not pled or demonstrated an actual injury inasmuch as he has not shown that
the Defendants’ refusal to make the requested copies has resulted in loss/rejection of any claim or
that he has otherwise been prevented from pursuing his underlying conditions-of-confinement case.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s motion to compel the Defendants to provide copies of a legal text from the
law library should be denied as lacking an adequate constitutional basis.
2
Due Process
To the extent the Plaintiff implies that his motion to compel is predicated upon the
Defendants’ refusal to honor jail policy to provide inmates with copies at the “general rate” of ten
cents per page (DN 74-1), the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the existence of such a policy –
whether written or merely unwritten custom or practice.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty
or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. A liberty interest may arise
from the Constitution itself or “an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies.”
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). In a prison context, a protected liberty interest is one
the denial of which would “impose[] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to
the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). The Plaintiff
has failed to show the existence of a policy the denial of which is imposing upon him this degree of
hardship.
Obstruction of Justice
The Plaintiff’s request to prohibit obstruction of justice by defendants appears to be
predicated upon the same refusal to permit photocopies that is the subject of the Plaintiff’s motion
to compel. Therefore, the request also should be denied.
Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Copies
of Legal Text from the Law Library and to Prohibit Obstruction of Justice by Defendants (DN 74)
is hereby DENIED.
November 6, 2012
3
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?