Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01605/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01605-3/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

07cv1605-JM (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY J. WAYNE,

Plaintiff,

v.

O. LEAL, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07cv1605-JM (BLM)

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING 

LAW LIBRARY ACCESS, AND (2)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 64]

On December 5, 2008, Plaintiff in the above matter moved this Court

for an order granting law library access. Doc. No. 64. In the

alternative, Plaintiff asks that he be provided with legal counsel.

Id. at 3. Plaintiff claims that “due to the minimal access of law

library or none at all, and due to the unlawful actions and failures to

act by state prison officials to deny [him] access to a law library...”

such an order is necessary for him to “challenge the legality of his

case.” Id. at 2. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that such an

order is necessary to guarantee him access to courts. Plaintiff has not

indicated any need for emergency relief, filed a motion for temporary

restraining order, or a request for a preliminary injunction.

Further, Plaintiff does not have an unlimited right to access the

prison’s library. Prison officials are not required to provide

Case 3:07-cv-01605-JM-BLM Document 65 Filed 12/16/08 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 07cv1605-JM (BLM)

materials beyond those that would enable a prisoner to bring his

grievance before the Court. Although Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,

825-26 (1977), suggested that the State must enable a prisoner to

discover grievances, and to litigate effectively once in court, the

Supreme Court in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), expressly

disavowed such a right. Id. at 354. Only materials that would ensure

meaningful access – the ability to present a claim – are required: “To

demand the conferral of sophisticated legal capabilities upon a mostly

uneducated and indeed largely illiterate prison population is

effectively to demand a permanent provision of counsel, which we do not

believe this Constitution requires.” Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motion for an order granting law library access is DENIED at this time.

Moreover, the Court previously heard and denied Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel. Doc. No. 31. For the reasons stated therein,

Plaintiff’s renewed request for counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 16, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE JEFFREY T. MILLER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-01605-JM-BLM Document 65 Filed 12/16/08 Page 2 of 2