Gillum v. Yates et al

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 2 plaintiff's Motion for Non-Compliance. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EVERETT J. GILLUM,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. CIV 19-130-RAW-SPS

JAMES YATES, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Everett J. Gillum, a pro se prisoner who is incarcerated at Davis
Correctional Facility (DCF) in Holdenville, Oklahoma, has filed a AMotion for NonCompliance@ (Dkt. 2) in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The Court
construes the motion as a motion for declaratory relief.
Plaintiff is requesting the Court to Aadmonish (DCF) and its >facility-head=/
administration regarding its cavalier disposition concerning it=s [sic] dysfunctional law
library and inoperable mailroom, instructing them to make the necessary adjustments so
operations at their facility siece [sic] to trample the constitutional rights of aspiring litigants
held there.@ (Dkt. 2 at 2). The Court construes the motion as a motion for declaratory
relief.
Plaintiff alleges the law library staff fail to make daily or weekly rounds with law
clerks, when he has Athe inassailable [sic] constitutional right to (24) hr. access to the
court.@ Id. at 1-2. He also alleges the DCF mailroom has only one employee for the 1,200

prisoners incarcerated in the facility, which is inadequate staffing to provide federallyprotected mail deliveries and retrievals. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further claims this system
Amust be taken as a [sic] indirect method of sabotage when view [sic] in light of courtimposed deadlines.@ Id.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Athe constitutional obligation to
provide inmates access to courts does not require states to give inmates unlimited access
to a law library, and inmates do not have the right to select the method by which access
will be provided.@ Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399 (10th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
The Constitution requires only that reasonable access to the courts be permitted. Johnson
v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 490 (1969); Ford v. Schmidt, 577 F.2d 408, 410 (7th Cir. 1978),
cert. denied, 439 U.S. 870 (1978).
To establish a claim of denial of access to the courts, plaintiff must show that
defendant=s conduct caused him actual injury by frustrating or hindering his
pursuit of a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353
(1996). The legal claim affected must be one that either directly or
collaterally attacks plaintiff=s conviction or sentence, or one that challenges
the conditions of his confinement. See id. at 354-55.
Murphy v. Shenk, No. 97-1300, 1998 WL 536381, at *2 (10th Cir. Aug. 10, 1998)
(unpublished). Furthermore, in a ' 1983 action, the Court will only consider claims Abased
upon the violation of a plaintiff=s personal rights, and not the rights of someone else.@
Archuleta v. McShan, 897 F.2d 495, 497 (10th Cir. 1990).
After careful review, the Court finds Plaintiff=s vague and conclusory allegations
are insufficient to justify relief. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals consistently has held
that bald conclusions, unsupported by allegations of fact, are legally insufficient, and

pleadings containing only such conclusory language may be summarily dismissed or
stricken without a hearing. Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 1059 (1990); Lorraine v. United States, 444 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1971).
The Court further finds there is no evidence that the defendants in any way impeded
Plaintiff=s contact with the courts or his access to his criminal attorney or to his civil
counsel. Under these standards, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to
relief for infringement of his right of access to the courts.
ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff=s Motion for Non-Compliance (Dkt. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of May 2019.

3