Williams, Jessie v. Pollard, William et al

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing 4 Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. (Amended Complaint due 8/13/2013. ) Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/23/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JESSIE WILLIAMS,

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

13-cv-395-bbc

v.
WILLIAM POLLARD and GREFF,
Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Jessie Williams has filed a proposed complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff is a prisoner, which means he is subject to the requirements of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, including those that require him to
make an initial partial payment of the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), and that require
the court to screen complaints filed by prisoners to determine whether they state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In a previous order, dkt. #5, Magistrate Judge Peter Oppeneer concluded that plaintiff
was not required to make an initial partial payment of the filing fee because he did not have
the means to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is ready for
screening.
The body of plaintiff’s complaint consists of one sentence: “I’m complaining about
me having access to a legal assistant to help with my pending legal actions in federal court

1

due to cancel[la]tion of the legal route system.” Plaintiff does not provide any context for
this allegation, but I know from another case that plaintiff filed, Williams v. Hamblin, 12-cv470-bbc (W.D. Wis.), that the “legal route system” allowed prisoners to send legal
documents to each other without the cost of postage. Id. at dkt. #27, ¶¶ 5-9. I understand
plaintiff to contend that defendants are violating his right to have access to the courts by
failing either to give him free legal postage to other prisoners or otherwise give him a legal
assistant.
A claim for denial of the right of access to the courts has two elements: (1) the
defendant refused to assist the plaintiff in preparing and filing legal papers; and (2) the
plaintiff was “actually injured,” which means he was prevented from filing or litigating a
particular lawsuit. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d
965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006); Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 868 (7th Cir. 2004). In this case,
plaintiff has not provided the notice required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 with respect to either
element.
With respect to the first element, I understand plaintiff to be alleging that defendants
have limited his ability to obtain assistance from other prisoners, but that is not enough.
Plaintiff does not have a right under the Constitution to assistance from prisoners or any
other particular type of assistance. Rather, he has a right to “meaningful access” to the
courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824 (1977). Thus, prison officials may provide
whatever assistance they wish, so long as it provides that meaningful access. Id. at 830
(providing law libraries to prisoners is “one constitutionally acceptable method to assure

2

meaningful access to the courts,” but that “does not foreclose alternative means to achieve
that goal”). Because plaintiff says nothing in his complaint about other types of assistance,
I cannot infer reasonably that he is being denied meaningful access.
With respect to the second element of actual injury, plaintiff is required to explain
how defendants’ failure to help him has hurt his ability to file or litigate a particular case.
Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730, 732 (7th Cir. 2006). In other words, plaintiff must identify a
particular case and explain how defendants’ actions have affected that case. It is not enough
for plaintiff to say generally that he believes that defendants’ actions are denying his right
of access to the courts, which is all he has done in this case.
I will give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint that includes the
missing facts. In particular, plaintiff should include the following facts:
•

any assistance from defendants or other prison officials that is available to
plaintiff in filing and litigating lawsuits;

•

the case number for any case that plaintiff believes he has been unable to file
or litigate because of defendants’ failure to assist him;

•

how plaintiff believes defendants have prevented him from filing or litigating
a case;

•

the particular effect that defendants’ actions have had on the case.

If plaintiff fails to respond, I will dismiss the case and issue a strike in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 704-06 (7th Cir. 2011) (court should
give strike for failure to correct pleading that violates Rule 8).

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Jessie Williams’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
his failure to provide adequate notice of his claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
2. Plaintiff may have until August 13, 2013, to file an amended complaint that
includes the facts discussed in this order.
3. If plaintiff fails to respond by August 13, 2013, I will dismiss the case with
prejudice and issue a strike in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Entered this 23rd day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4