GLADU v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS et al

Filing 74

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 64 Motion for paper copies. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

NICHOLAS A. GLADU,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:15-cv-00384-JDL

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PAPER COPIES
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s request for an order that Defendants provide
Plaintiff with paper copies of all authorities cited in support of Defendants’ future filings. (ECF
No. 64.) Defendants oppose the motion. (ECF Nos. 66, 67.) After consideration of the parties’
arguments, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion.
Through his motion, Plaintiff asserts that he lacks sufficient time to review online every
case cited by Defendants in their filings because his access to the law library is limited to one hour
each week. (Id. at 1.) According to Defendants, Plaintiff has been subject to restrictions on his
law library access due to security considerations related to Plaintiff’s misconduct, but currently
has access to a Westlaw terminal three days each week for one hour. (ECF No. 66 at 2.)
Subsequent to the filing of his motion, Plaintiff has filed an opposition to a partial motion to
dismiss, in which opposition Plaintiff has cited several legal authorities. (ECF No. 69.)
To guarantee prisoners their constitutional right of access to the courts, prison authorities
are required to provide prisoners with adequate law libraries or legally trained assistants to prepare
and file meaningful legal papers. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). In support of his
request, Plaintiff cites Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009), where the Second Circuit

noted the difficulties presented when a pro se litigant does not have access to copies, without cost,
of “opinions available only on the fee-based, electronic databases of Westlaw and Lexis or in the
Federal Appendix.” Id. at 77 – 78 (“[W]e are concerned about the impact on the appearance of
justice when pro se litigants may not have financial access to case authorities that form the basis
of a court’s decision, thereby hampering the litigants’ opportunities to understand and assert their
legal rights.”); see also Davis v. Lafler, 692 F. Supp. 2d 705, 706 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (“Because it
appears that Petitioner lacks access to these electronic databases at the prison library, this Court
will order Respondent’s counsel to provide Petitioner with paper copies of any unpublished
decisions and electronically-available-only opinions on which he or she has based or supported
pleadings filed or that will be filed in this matter.”).
In this case, unlike the pro se litigants in Lebron and Davis, the record does not establish
that either Defendants or the Court has cited authority to which Plaintiff would not have access
through the Westlaw database. In addition, the record reflects that Plaintiff’s access to the Westlaw
database for four hours each week is adequate in this case. That is, Plaintiff’s submissions in the
case demonstrate that Plaintiff has access to legal authority, and that he can capably research the
relevant issues.
Provided the authority is available through the Westlaw database, therefore, Defendants
are not required to provide Plaintiff with paper copies of all of the legal authority to which they
refer. In the event Defendants cite any authority that is unpublished or not otherwise available on
the Westlaw database, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with paper copies of the authority upon
the filing of the submissions in which the authority is cited.

2

CERTIFICATE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 28th day of January, 2016.

3