Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01701/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01701-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 05-3750/06-1701

___________

Duane C. White, *

*

Appellee/Cross-Appellant, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

W.L. Kautzky, Director of the Iowa *

Department of Corrections; John F. *

Ault, Warden of Anamosa State *

Penitentiary, *

*

Appellants/Cross-Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2007

Filed: July 17, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

W.L. Kautzky and John F. Ault (collectively, the defendants) appeal the district

court’s judgment holding the defendants liable for denying Duane C. White (White)

meaningful access to the courts. White cross-appeals the district court’s nominal

damages award. Finding no actual injury, we reverse the finding of liability and

vacate the district court’s judgment. 

Appellate Case: 06-1701 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2007 Entry ID: 3330233
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

On June 25, 1999, White was arrested in Iowa for violating Iowa law and also

on an outstanding South Dakota arrest warrant. White was detained in the Woodbury

County Jail, near Sioux City, Iowa. White was later transferred from Iowa to South

Dakota and back without formal extradition. White pled guilty in Iowa and South

Dakota. The Iowa plea agreement allowed the State of Iowa to pursue additional

charges if White filed an application for post-conviction relief. White was

incarcerated in the Anamosa State Penitentiary (Anamosa) in Iowa from December

16, 1999, to July 25, 2002, when White was transferred to the South Dakota State

Penitentiary where he presently is incarcerated. 

Before White arrived at Anamosa on December 16, 1999, Anamosa

discontinued its prison library. In place of the prison library, Anamosa hired contract

attorneys in 2000 who came to the prison several days each month, met with inmates

individually for approximately fifteen minutes, answered simple legal questions, and

dispensed legal forms. Although the policy in effect at Anamosa would not

compensate contract attorneys for researching legal issues for the inmates, the contract

attorneys performed limited legal research on an ad hoc basis. 

During White’s incarceration at Anamosa, White approached a contract

attorney about his improper extradition. White sought legal advice and research from

the contract attorney. The contract attorney advised White to file an application for

post-conviction relief. White never told the contract attorney the State of Iowa could

pursue additional charges if White filed an application for post-conviction relief. 

On March 28, 2002, White filed a grievance concerning the contract-attorney

system in place at Anamosa. After exhausting the available administrative remedies,

White filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending the absence of a

prison library or an attorney to perform legal research violated his right of meaningful

Appellate Case: 06-1701 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2007 Entry ID: 3330233
-3-

access to the courts. The parties submitted the case to the district court on the

designated record. The district court concluded:

the legal assistance system at [Anamosa] stood as an unconstitutional

impediment to White’s access to the courts, because it did not provide a

reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of

fundamental constitutional rights to the courts where the legal assistance

system precluded even the minimum level of legal research that would

be necessary, in some specific circumstances, to provide reasonably

competent legal advice sufficient for an inmate to present his claims to

the court. 

White v. Kautzky, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1057 (N.D. Iowa 2005) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). The district court further concluded White’s actual

injury was the loss of a § 1983 claim. Id. at 1058-59. The district court awarded

White nominal damages in the amount of $1. Id. at 1060. This appeal followed. 

II. DISCUSSION

We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings, and we review de

novo the district court’s legal conclusions. See Snider v. United States, 468 F.3d 500,

509 (8th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). 

The Constitution guarantees prisoners a right to access the courts. See Murray

v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 11 n.6 (1989) (“The prisoner’s right of access has been

described as a consequence of the right to due process of law and as an aspect of equal

protection.” (internal citations omitted)); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S.

403, 415 n.12 (2002) (noting, outside of the context of prisons, the right to access the

courts is guaranteed by an amalgam of the Article IV Privileges and Immunities

Clause, the First Amendment Petition Clause, the Fifth Amendment Due Process

Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses).

For prisoners, meaningful access to the courts “requires prison authorities to assist

inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing

Appellate Case: 06-1701 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/17/2007 Entry ID: 3330233
-4-

prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in

the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977), overruled on other grounds by

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). In Bounds, the phrase “adequate

assistance from persons trained in the law” refers to “the adequacy of the prisoner’s

access to his or her court-appointed counsel or other law-trained assistant,” not “to the

effectiveness of the representation.” Schrier v. Halford, 60 F.3d 1309, 1313-14 (8th

Cir. 1995). Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to legal counsel to pursue the

prisoners’ grievances; consequently, prisoners do not possess a constitutional right to

effective assistance of counsel in pursuing advice from legal counsel regarding prison

grievances. Id. at 1313. Meaningful access to the courts is the capability to bring

“actions seeking new trials, release from confinement, or vindication of fundamental

civil rights.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 827; see Lamp v. State of Iowa, 122 F.3d 1100,

1105 (8th Cir. 1997). The state has no obligation to “enable the prisoners to discover

grievances [or] to litigate effectively once in court.” Casey, 518 U.S. at 354. 

To prove a violation of the right of meaningful access to the courts, a prisoner

must establish the state has not provided an opportunity to litigate a claim challenging

the prisoner’s sentence or conditions of confinement in a court of law, which resulted

in actual injury, that is, the hindrance of a nonfrivolous and arguably meritorious

underlying legal claim. See Harbury, 536 U.S. at 413, 415; Casey, 518 U.S. at 351,

353, 355. Because the actual injury requirement concerns the prisoner’s standing to

bring a claim, and thus our jurisdiction, and because we avoid unnecessarily deciding

constitutional issues, we will first consider whether White suffered any actual injury.

E.g., Casey, 518 U.S. at 349; see also Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288,

346 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). 

To prove actual injury, White must “demonstrate that a nonfrivoulous legal

claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.” Casey, 518 U.S. at 353 (footnotes

omitted). White contends the contract-attorney system in place at Anamosa resulted

Appellate Case: 06-1701 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/17/2007 Entry ID: 3330233
1

The district court found “White met with [a contract attorney] and asked him

for advice on whether to file a post[-]conviction relief action challenging his

conviction based on issues relating to extradition and jurisdiction.” White, 386

F. Supp. 2d at 1048. The State of Iowa argues the district court’s factual finding is not

clearly erroneous, and White cannot argue an actual injury based on the loss of a claim

pursuant to § 1983, because White never pled such an injury in the complaint. The

record reflects White approached the contract attorney about his improper extradition,

White asked the attorney what to do about it, and the contract attorney recommended

filing an application for post-conviction relief. Because we liberally construe pro se

complaints, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), we will generously

consider the loss of White’s § 1983 claim as a part of White’s actual injury. 

-5-

in two actual injuries: (1) the loss of a post-conviction relief claim under Iowa Code

chapter 822, and (2) the loss of a § 1983 claim.1

 

First, regarding White’s claim for post-conviction relief, “the power of a court

to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within

the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a ‘forcible abduction.’” Brown v. Nutsch, 619

F.2d 758, 762 (8th Cir. 1980) (quoting Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952)

(quoting Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 (1886))); see Gardels v. Brewer, 190

N.W.2d 803, 806 (Iowa 1971) (stating “the manner in which a defendant is rendered

before the court has no effect upon the court’s jurisdiction”). Improper extradition is

not a ground for post-conviction relief pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 822. See Iowa

Code § 822.2 (setting forth the grounds on which post-conviction relief may be

granted); cf. State v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Winneshiek County, 500 N.W.2d 51, 53 (Iowa

1993) (stating a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Iowa Code

chapter 820 “is the proper way to test the legality of an arrest under a governor’s

extradition warrant” and noting judicial review is limited to determining whether the

applicant was charged with a crime and present in the demanding state when the crime

Appellate Case: 06-1701 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/17/2007 Entry ID: 3330233
2

We need not decide whether White can seek relief pursuant to Iowa Code

chapter 820 or whether the loss of a claim pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 820 is an

actual injury because these issues are not before the court. 

-6-

was committed).2

 White’s remedy is not filing an application for post-conviction

relief under Iowa Code chapter 822. 

We now turn to the second actual injury contention, the loss of a § 1983 claim.

“[S]ection 1983 provides a remedy for improper extradition in violation of the

extradition clause and statute.” Brown, 619 F.2d at 764. Adopting the most

appropriate Iowa statute of limitations, Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 275 (1985),

superceded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Jones v. R.R. Donnelly &

Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 379-80 (2004), the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim

is two years, Wycoff v. Menke, 773 F.2d 983, 984 (8th Cir. 1985). White filed his

grievance on March 28, 2002, and his complaint on July 3, 2002, more than two years

after the improper extraditions. Thus, any § 1983 claim based on White’s extraditions

is manifestly untimely. 

Because of the applicable statutory law and controlling case precedent, White’s

post-conviction relief and § 1983 claims are not arguably meritorious and are

frivolous. We conclude White failed to prove he suffered an actual injury as a result

of the contract-attorney system in place at Anamosa. Because we conclude White

never suffered an actual injury, we need not address White’s cross-appeal challenging

the district court’s damages award, and we do not reach the issue whether the contractattorney system provided White with meaningful access to the courts. 

Appellate Case: 06-1701 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/17/2007 Entry ID: 3330233
3

By our decision today, finding no actual injury and thus no jurisdictional

standing, we do not suggest or imply the district court’s reasoning and conclusions on

whether the Anamosa contract-attorney system was an unconstitutional impediment

to White’s access to the courts are valid. 

-7-

III. CONCLUSION

We reverse and vacate the judgment of the district court.3

 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1701 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/17/2007 Entry ID: 3330233