Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05263/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05263-0/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

RODERICK WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD EARLY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5263 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRISON

OFFICIALS TO RETURN EXHIBITS (Doc. 

54.) 

 Roderick Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion for Prison Officials to Return

Exhibits.” In this pleading, Plaintiff asks the Court to order prison officials to return exhibits he

submitted that were attached to his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that they were

destroyed by prison officials and that his access to the Court therefore, has been impeded. 

A prisoner alleging a violation of his right of access to the courts must demonstrate that

he has suffered “actual injury.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-50 (1996). The right to

access the courts is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and civil rights

actions challenging conditions of confinement. Id. at 354-55. “An inmate cannot establish

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 55 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 3
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

relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistance

program is sub-par in some theoretical sense.” Id. at 351. Rather, the inmate “must go one step

further and demonstrate that the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue

a legal claim.” Id. The actual-injury requirement mandates that an inmate “demonstrate that a

nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.” Id. at 353. In Lewis v.

Casey, the Supreme Court defined prisoners’ right of access to the courts as simply the “right to

bring to court a grievance.” Id. at 354. The Court specifically rejected the notion that the state

must enable a prisoner to “litigate effectively once in court.” Id. (quoting and disclaiming

language contained in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825-26 (1977)); see also Cornett v.

Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995) (determining that prisoners’ right of access to the

courts is limited to the pleading stage of a civil rights action or petition for writ of habeas

corpus). 

In this case, Plaintiff has filed a Complaint, which the Court screened and dismissed with

leave to amend, and an Amended Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff’s right to bring to the court a

grievance, is not impeded. To the extent his Amended Complaint is unaccompanied by exhibits,

exhibits are not required in order to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff is an experienced litigator

and is fully aware of what is required to state a claim for relief. Similarly, Plaintiff is aware that

the right of access to the court is merely the right to bring to the Court a grievance. Because the

case is currently in state where it is ready to be screened again by the Court, no dismissal due to

the lack of exhibits or any alleged impediments has occurred. Thus, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate

injury. In addition, because the Court has previously screened the complaint and informed

Plaintiff of the deficiencies, he needed only cure those deficiencies to state a claim for relief. 

The Court’s order did not require that Plaintiff submit exhibits in support of his claims for relief. 

To the extent Plaintiff complains that his 602 appeals are not being addressed, Plaintiff is

also aware that he has no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a

specific grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484-86 (1995). That Plaintiff has an action currently pending does not

bestow on him the right to bring every perceived wrong to the attention of the Court. Plaintiff’s

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 55 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

other complaints regarding a delay in receiving copies is a circumstance experienced by every

incarcerated individual and do not warrant intervention by the Court. As noted above, an

Amended Complaint is awaiting screening by the Court, no exhibits were required by the Court

and thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for return of exhibits is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 55 Filed 07/14/05 Page 3 of 3