Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03137/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03137-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Fowler
Appellant
Herb Maschner
Appellee
Jerry Spear
Appellee

Document Text:

F 1 LED 

Untt(,,d States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirr.uit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS f ov O 1990 

RAYMOND FOWLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HERB MASCHNER and JERRY 

SPEAR, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. I·IOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3137 

(D.C. No. 87-3332) 

(D . KAn) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has detennined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the detennination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff appeals the granting of a summary judgment motion 

in favor of defendants on his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1983. We 

grant plaintiff pennission to proceed in fonna pauperis. In his 

complaint, the prisoner alleged that he was denied adequate access 

to the courts while incarcerated in the Adjustment and Treatment 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3137 Document: 010110093927 Date Filed: 11/30/1990 Page: 1 
Unit (A&T) of the Kansas State Penitentiary (KSP) because he did 

not have use of a typewriter to prepare his prose briefs nor 

sufficient access to the prison's law library. After a Martinez 

Report was produced by the prison, the defendants made a motion 

for summary judgment. The prisoner responded, and the district 

court granted the defendants' motion. 

In granting the motion, the district court first found that 

the denial of the use of a typewriter did not violate the 

prisoner's right to access to the courts because "a prose 

litigant is not prejudiced by filing handwritten legal materials." 

Dist. Ct. Op. at 3. Clearly, handwritten prose complaints are 

accepted by the federal courts without any prejudice towards the 

prisoners. Indeed, this complaint was, to a great extent 

handwritten, and received careful consideration. Additionally, 

this court has found that "[a]ccess to the courts does not include 

a federally protected right to use a typewriter or to have one's 

pleadings typed." Tyrnan v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358 (10th Cir. 

1990). Therefore, we find no error in the district court's 

conclusion that the A&T prohibition on typewriters did not violate 

the prisoner's right to court access. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 

U.S. 817 (1977). 

Additionally, the court found that the prisoner was not 

denied access to the courts simply because he was denied access to 

the law library. Through the Martinez Report, the prison 

acknowledged that the prisoner, because he was in the A&T unit, 

was prohibited from visiting the law library. However, the 

Martinez Report indicated that A&T prisoners were able to order 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3137 Document: 010110093927 Date Filed: 11/30/1990 Page: 2 
materials from the law library and had assistance from the Legal 

Services for Prisoners (LSP). On the basis of this report, the 

defendants moved for summary judgment. 

This court has found that a Martinez Report cannot be viewed 

as a "substitution of prison officials for the court as fact 

finders." Sampley v. Ruettgers, 704 F.2d 491, 493 n.3 (10th Cir.) 

Additionally, a Martinez Report cannot be used to resolve disputed 

factual issues that are central to the case. See Collins v. • 

Cundy, 603 F.2d 824, 825 (10th Cir. 1979). In this case, however, 

there was no such misuse of the Martinez Report. The defendants, 

through their summary judgment and with reference to the Martinez 

Report, argued that the requirements of Bounds had been met 

because the ability of the prisoner to receive law library 

materials, coupled with the assistance from LSP attorneys, gave 

access to the courts. 

The prisoner's answer to the summary judgment motion, and his 

list of witnesses and exhibits, in no way contradicted this 

conclusion. For instance, nowhere did the prisoner complain that 

he had been unable to utilize the system by which law library 

materials were conveyed to prisoners in A&T. Similarly, the 

prisoner never rebutted the assertions made by the defendants that 

the prisoner had at his disposal the assistance of the LSP lawyers 

and that the "L.S.P. will provide access to legal reference 

material for inmates that are not available in the law library." 

See Martinez Report, Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Lisa Nathanson. 

Again, we cannot say that the conditions as described in the 

Martinez Report, uncontested as they were by the prisoner, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3137 Document: 010110093927 Date Filed: 11/30/1990 Page: 3 
.. 

violated the prisoner's right to court access as guaranteed by the 

Constitution and Bounds. Therefore, because there were no central 

factual issues in dispute, the district court did not error by 

relying on the Martinez Report in granting the defendants' summary 

judgment motion. 

We AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith ~ 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3137 Document: 010110093927 Date Filed: 11/30/1990 Page: 4