Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05352/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05352-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH, CIV-F-04-5352 AWI DLB HC

 aka TAHEE ABD’RASHEED,

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND 

Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS 

vs. [Doc. 39]

SCRIBNER, WARDEN, et al., 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 25, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion requesting use of the

law library in the Fresno federal building, specifically asking the court to detail the duration and

manner of his access. Doc. 37. 

On February 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”)

that Petitioner’s motion for access to library be DENIED. Doc. 39. The F&R was served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of the order. 

On March 15, 2005, Petitioner filed timely objections to the F&R. Doc. 43. Petitioner’s

objection does not address his right to legal materials, but instead discusses the merits of his

underlying habeas petition. With respect to his motion for library access, Petitioner’s objection adds

no additional arguments. 

Case 1:04-cv-05352-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 04/21/05 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Petitioner argues that (1) the two hours per week of library time at CSPCorcoran (where he is held) is insufficient and (2) that the library within the prison is inadequate as

the books are outdated. The Magistrate Judge is correct in stating that Petitioner’s assertions are

more raised in a Section 1983 claim than a habeas petition for wrongful imprisonment. Petitioner

does not allege that the prison prevented him from bringing a proper suit. Aside from providing

reasonable access to the courts, prisons are not required to ensure that prisoners can “litigate

effectively,” even in habeas corpus proceedings. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). Having

carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the F&R is supported by the record and

proper analysis. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for access to the law library is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05352-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 2