Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03500/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 14, 2010*

Decided April 14, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3500

ERIC WISE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES KAISER, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 07-CV-1150

J.P. Stadtmueller,

Judge.

O R D E R

Eric Wise sued the sheriff of Kenosha County, Wisconsin, and other employees of the

county jail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that their library policy violated his right to

access the courts. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and

Wise appeals. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

Wise was incarcerated at the Kenosha County Jail for four months. During that time,

he says, he requested access to the law library about once every three days; each time he

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3500 Document: 14 Filed: 04/14/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09-3500 Page 2

was denied because he could not provide an exact citation to any particular legal material. 

As a result, he claims, he forfeited potential appellate issues in a Texas criminal case, was

unable to make an informed decision to plead guilty in a Wisconsin criminal case, was

unable to file an adequate petition for habeas corpus in a federal criminal case, and was

delayed in filing this § 1983 suit.

The district court granted summary judgment against Wise. Wise was represented

by privately retained counsel in his two state criminal cases, the court explained, and a

prisoner who is represented by counsel enjoys meaningful access to courts regardless of his

ability to access a prison library. And even if Wise could show that the jail’s library policy

was deficient, the court added, the remainder of his claim would fail because he could not

show that he was prejudiced as a result.

Wise argues on appeal that the district court erred in ruling that a prisoner who is

represented by retained counsel necessarily enjoys meaningful access to the courts. He cites

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), and a slew of cases

from our sister circuits for the proposition that the state had an affirmative obligation to

provide him with either an appointed lawyer or access to a law library. Because the state

did neither, he says, his right to access the courts was infringed.

But Wise misreads the caselaw. “[P]rison law libraries and legal assistance programs

are not ends in themselves, but only the means for ensuring ‘a reasonably adequate

opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the

courts.’ ” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351 (quoting Bounds, 430 U.S. at 825). Wise chose to retain his

own lawyer in his state criminal cases and therefore had the opportunity to present his

defenses in court. Because “access to legal materials is required only for unrepresented

litigants,” the state was not required to provide him with anything more. See Campbell v.

Clarke, 481 F.3d 967, 968 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Byrd, 208 F.3d 592, 593 (7th Cir.

2000).

Wise next argues that the district court erred by concluding that he was not

prejudiced in his federal case. He explains that, although he filed multiple documents

attempting to institute a habeas corpus action before two different district courts, his filings

were “so incompetent” that he never succeeded. But these “incompetent” filings are not

sufficient evidence of prejudice. Wise was released from the Kenosha County Jail several

months before the statute of limitations ran on filing a petition for habeas corpus, yet he did

not submit any evidence to show that the defendants’ library policy prevented him from

preparing an adequate filing during that lengthy period. The delay Wise suffered because

Case: 09-3500 Document: 14 Filed: 04/14/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09-3500 Page 3

of the defendants’ library policy did not prejudice his federal case. See Johnson v. Barczak,

338 F.3d 771, 773 (7th Cir. 2003); Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 559 (7th Cir. 1995).

Finally Wise makes the circular argument that the defendants’ library policy

prejudiced him by delaying his filing of this § 1983 suit. But the right to access the courts “is

ancillary to [an] underlying claim, without which a plaintiff cannot have suffered injury by

being shut out of court.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Bridges v. Gilbert,

557 F.3d 541, 553 (7th Cir. 2009). This suit may not serve as that underlying claim.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-3500 Document: 14 Filed: 04/14/2010 Pages: 3