Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01595-2/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

JOSE RIOS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ORTIZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01595-HBK (PC)

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

(Doc. No. 9)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pleading titled “Motion Requesting Court Order on 

the Fresno County, Jail for Access to Courts,” filed April 4, 2024. (Doc. No. 9, “Motion”). 

Plaintiff requests “the court to order the Fresno County Jail to allow Plaintiff access to courts, 

particularly access to the law library. Access to Courts is solidified in the First Amendment; . . .” 

(Id. at 1).

Plaintiff as a prisoner has a constitutionally protected right of access to courts guaranteed 

by the Fourteenth Amendment. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). Implicit within this

right of access to courts is the prisoner’s right to have access to adequate law libraries or legal 

assistance from trained individuals. “[T]he fundamental constitutional right of access to the 

courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful 

legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from 

persons trained in the law.” Id. at 828 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Precedent “does not 

Case 1:23-cv-01595-HBK Document 11 Filed 04/08/24 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

dictate a minimum number of hours or any other requirement for satisfying the right of access” to 

a law library. Witkin v. Swarthout, 2013 WL 6054451, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013). Because 

there is no established minimum requirement for satisfying the access requirement; “a reviewing 

court should focus on whether the individual plaintiff before it has been denied meaningful 

access.” Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.1989) (overruled on other grounds by 

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996)). To establish a First Amendment claim based on 

denial of access to the law library, an inmate must demonstrate an actual injury. Vandelft v. 

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

Here, Plaintiff alleges no facts describing how the restrictions on his access to the law 

library at Fresno County Jail is impeding him in advancing the instant claim. Indeed, a review of 

the docket reveals that service has not yet been effectuated in this matter and Plaintiff is not under 

any court-ordered deadline.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED.

Dated: April 8, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01595-HBK Document 11 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 2