Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05263/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05263-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD EARLY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5263 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ALL WRIT

ACT TO RETURN LEGAL PAPERS AND

STATIONARY (Doc. 51.) 

 Roderick Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion for All Writ Act to Return

Legal Papers and Stationary . . ..” In this pleading, Plaintiff asks the Court to order prison

officials to return legal papers and stationary he claims were confiscated and destroyed. 

A prisoner alleging a violation of his right of access to the courts must demonstrate that

he has suffered “actual injury.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-50 (1996). The right to

access the courts is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and civil rights

actions challenging conditions of confinement. Id. at 354-55. “An inmate cannot establish

relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistance

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 58 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

program is sub-par in some theoretical sense.” Id. at 351. Rather, the inmate “must go one step

further and demonstrate that the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue

a legal claim.” Id. The actual-injury requirement mandates that an inmate “demonstrate that a

nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.” Id. at 353. In Lewis v.

Casey, the Supreme Court defined prisoners’ right of access to the courts as simply the “right to

bring to court a grievance.” Id. at 354. The Court specifically rejected the notion that the state

must enable a prisoner to “litigate effectively once in court.” Id. (quoting and disclaiming

language contained in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825-26 (1977)); see also Cornett v.

Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995) (determining that prisoners’ right of access to the

courts is limited to the pleading stage of a civil rights action or petition for writ of habeas

corpus). 

In this case, Plaintiff has filed a Complaint and an Amended Complaint which the Court

has yet to screen. Thus, Plaintiff’s right to bring to the court a grievance is not impeded. Plaintiff

is an experienced litigator and is fully aware that the right of access to the court is merely the

right to bring to the Court a grievance. Plaintiff states that without these documents he cannot

respond to a Motion to Dismiss. However, as noted above, Defendants have yet to make an

appearance in this action and thus, there is no pending Motion to respond to. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion for All Writs Act . . .” is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 58 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2