Jackson v. Berghuis
Filing
50
OPINION and ORDER Denying Petitioner's 43 Motion to Compel Meaningful Access to the Courts Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS JACKSON,
Case No. 15-cv-11622
Petitioner,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
v.
WARDEN LES PARISH,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
COMPEL MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS [#43]
I. INTRODUCTION
Present before the Court is Petitioner Douglas Jackson’s Motion to Compel
Meaningful Access to the Courts, which was filed on November 13, 2018. Dkt.
No. 43. Respondent Les Parish answered Petitioner’s Motion on January 7, 2019.
Dkt. No. 48. Petitioner has not filed a reply.1 For the reasons set forth below, the
Court will DENY Petitioner’s Motion [#43].
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner, in this habeas action, moves the Court for an order directing
Respondent to provide him with full access to the prison law library at the Oaks
Correctional Facility. Petitioner asserts that he has been deprived of access to the
1
The Court directed Petitioner to file any reply brief by January 17, 2019.
-1-
prison law library in one form or another since his arrival at the Facility on May
31, 2018. For example, Petitioner claims, among other things, that he has been
placed in segregation and unlawfully subjected to a loss of privileges.
Petitioner acknowledges that the Correctional Facility has a system through
which prisoners placed in segregation can request that legal materials be brought
directly to their cell. Still, Petitioner maintains that this provides insufficient
access to the courts for three reasons. First, he claims the hard-copy research
publications in the prison law library have all been destroyed. Second, he claims
prison officials have not provided him with the materials he has requested. Finally,
he claims to need access to the prison law library’s computers -- and Lexis
Advance -- so he can browse through materials in search of inspiration.
Despite the arguments raised above, Petitioner’s Motion necessarily fails.
First, the appropriate mechanism to raise the claims presented in this Motion is a §
1983 action, not a habeas petition. Second, even if the Court were to convert
Petitioner’s Motion into a §1983 claim, he fails to establish prejudice or intentional
misconduct by prison officials, required elements of that claim.
A. Constitutional Claims that Merely Challenge the Conditions of a
Prisoner’s Confinement Fall Outside the Core of Habeas Relief.
“When a prisoner challenges the conditions of his or her confinement but not
the fact or length of his custody, the proper mechanism is a civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Turnboe v. Gundy, 27 Fed. Appx. 339 (6th Cir. 2001).
-2-
Here, Petitioner argues that he has been deprived of meaningful access to the
courts because he does not have full access to the prison law library at Oaks
Correctional Facility.
Because this is a constitutional claim challenging the
conditions of his confinement -- and not the fact or length of his custody -- this
claim should have been brought in a § 1983 suit, not a habeas action. See id.
B. Even Construing Petitioner’s Motion as a § 1983 Claim, Petitioner
Fails to Establish that he has been Prejudiced or that Prison Officials
Acted Intentionally to Deprive him of Meaningful Access to the
Courts.
“[T]he constitution does not require that prisoners [ ] be able to conduct
generalized research, but only that they be able to present their grievances to the
courts . . . .” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 360 (1996). To that end, “[i]n order to
state a claim for denial of meaningful access to the courts . . . plaintiffs must plead
and prove prejudice stemming from the asserted violation.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield,
92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). “Plaintiffs must demonstrate, 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.”
Id.
In addition, plaintiffs must prove that the
alleged violation was intentional, not merely negligent. Wojnicz v. Davis, 80 Fed.
Appx. 382, 384 (6th Cir. 2003).
Here, Petitioner fails to establish that he has been prejudiced or that any
alleged violation of his constitutional rights was intentional. The Court’s Docket
-3-
shows that since Petitioner has been at Oaks Correctional Facility, he has been able
file several pleadings, including five motions and an amended habeas petition.
This cuts against any suggestion that Petitioner has been deprived of meaningful
access to the courts. Moreover, any limitation on Petitioner’s access to the prison
law library appears to be the result of his own misconduct, not intentional
misconduct by prison officials. See also Lewis, 518 U.S. at 361 (holding a prison
regulation impinging on inmates’ constitutional rights is valid if it is reasonably
related to legitimate penological interests). Accordingly, the Court will Deny
Petitioner’s Motion.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court will DENY Petitioner’s Motion to
Compel Meaningful Access to the Courts [#43].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 27, 2019
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
-4-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys
of record on this date, February 27, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Teresa McGovern
Case Manager
-5-
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?