Oliver v. United States Marshals Service et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying without prejudice 9 Motion for Access to the Missoula County Detention Facility Law Library. Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 2/20/2014. Mailed to Oliver. (TAG, )

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

~

J:'11..
~~ I:lJ
lO~

O~~8~<-.

~.Of~c..

~Ia~~
CV l3-00224-M-DWM-JCL

CLIFTON RAY OLIVER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE, et aI.,
Defendants.
The Court has received a letter from Plaintiff Clifton Oliver requesting
authorization to have access to the law library or legal materials at the Missoula
County Detention Facility. (Doc. 9.) As Oliver was advised in the Notice of Case
Opening (Doc. 4), "[a]ll documents submitted to the Court should be in the form
of a pleading, notice, motion or brief. Letters to the presiding judge are not
authorized by the governing rules and should not be sent." (Doc. 4.) The Court
has construed Oliver's letter as a motion for access to the law library. Oliver is
advised that all future filings should be submitted in the form of a pleading, notice,
motion, or brief with the appropriate case caption on the first page.
Convicted prisoners have a fundamental right of meaningful access to the
courts, Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), but the scope of that right is quite

1

limited. Prisoners need only have "the minimal help necessary" to file legal
claims. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 360 (1996). The right of access to the courts is only
a right to bring complaints to federal court and not a right to discover such claims
or to litigate them effectively once filed with a court. Casey, 518 U.S. at 354-55;

Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995).
The Court will not interfere with the internal functions of the j ail unless or
until there has been a judgment finding that a violation of the United States
Constitution is being perpetrated by that facility. Jail officials are given deference
in day-to-day jail operations due to separation of powers and federalism concerns.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987).
This case is currently in the mandatory prescreening process required by 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A. Nothing will take place in this case until the prescreening
process has been completed. The Court will then consider Oliver's motion for
appointment of counsel. (Doc. 8.) At this point in the litigation, however, Oliver
has no constitutional right to access to the law library.
Accordingly, the Court issues the following:

ORDER
1. Oliver's letter received February 20, 2014 as construed as a Motion for
Access to the Missoula County Detention Facility Law Library (Doc. 9) is denied
2

without prejudice and subject to renewal.
2. At all times during the pendency of this action, Oliver shall immediately
advise the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Failure to file a
notice of change of address may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
DATED this 20th day ofFebruary, 2014.

J r miah C. Lynch
ited States Magistrate Judge

3