Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00546/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00546-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

H. Dymitr Haraszewski,

Plaintiff,

v.

Lisa Brannan et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10cv546 LAB (PCL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR ADEQUATE LAW

LIBRARY ACCESS 

(Doc. 74)

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking unlimited priority user status access to his law library at

Mule Creek State Prison. (Doc. 74.) 

An prisoner has a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts. Bounds v.

Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-21 (1977). Law library access serves as one of the means of ensuring

access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). “[T]he Constitution does not

guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to a law library. Prison officials of necessity must

regulate the time, manner, and place in which library facilities are used.” Linquist v. Idaho State

Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985). An inmate claiming that his right of

access to the courts will be violated due to inadequate law library access must show that access

was so limited as to be unreasonable and the inadequate access will cause actual injury.

Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Here, Plaintiff has provided no basis for this court to interfere with the prison’s

Case 3:10-cv-00546-LAB-PCL Document 75 Filed 07/20/12 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

administration of its law library. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the limited amount of

time that he has access to the library is unreasonable or that he will suffer actual injury from not

being able to prosecute his case adequately. Thus, his motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2012

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

10cv546 LAB (PCL)

2

Case 3:10-cv-00546-LAB-PCL Document 75 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 2