### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED O

N BRIEFS DE

CEMBER 29, 2000 EDDIE WILLIAMS, JR. v. ALTON HESSON, WARDEN, ET AL 

### . Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County No. 5302; The Honorable Joseph H. Walker, Judge

No. W2000-02725-COA-R3-CV - Filed March 13, 2001

This appeal involves a claim of discrimination and denial of acce ss to the courts by a maximum security inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. The court below granted summa ry judgment to the de

fendants. For th

e following rea

sons, we affirm th

e trial court’s e

ntr y of summary ju

dgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
A LAN E. H IGHERS , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVID R. F ARMER , J., and H OLLY K IRBY L ILLARD , J., joined. Eddie Williams, Jr., pro se Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor Ge neral, Mark A. Hudson, Senior Counsel, for Appellees
OPINION Facts and Procedural History
On October 8, 1999, E

ddie Williams, Jr., (Mr

. Williams) a maximum security inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction housed at West Tennessee State Penitentiary

in Henning , Tennesse e, filed a complaint for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the circuit court of Lauderdale County in Ripley , Tennessee. Mr. Williams sue d Alton Hes son, the warden of the penitentiary where Williams is housed, as well as several other prison e mployees.
In his compla

int, Mr. Wi

lliams al leged that the defendants engaged in job discrimination when they refus

ed to assign him to

a job as an inmate legal helper. The Unit Team for the Maximum Security Unit at West Tenness

ee State Penitentiary

and the Job Board d

etermine the job a

ssignments of inmates that are on maximum security status. According to on e of th e unit managers

at West Tennessee State Penitentiary, Mr. Williams is continually disruptive and threatening to staff and-2-

other inmates, and he is consider ed a s ecur ity risk because of his disruptive behavior. Since an inmate withthe position of legal helper conducts many of his job duties outs

ide of his cell, the

unit team re fused Mr. Williams’ request to become a legal helper because it was their opinion t hat h e would pose a secu

rity risk bas

ed on his past beha

vioral problems.
Mr. Williams also alleg

es that he is denie

d access to the co

urts bec ause he claims tha t his accessto legal books and supplies i s severely limited. In response, prison officials aver red that inmates in segregation are permitted to receive five legal books at a time, and r eq uests for more books are usually granted. Moreover, prison officials averred that legal supplies such as pens, paper, and carbon are i ssued on a regular basis and if additional supplies are needed, they are issued as necessary.
On November 15, 1999, Mr. Williams filed a Motion for Amended Complaint for Violation of Civi l Righ ts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to add additional defendants and claims. On December

15, 1999, a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment was filed by Defenda nts. The court below filedan order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case on September 5, 2000. Mr. Williams raises the following issues, as we perceive them, for our review: 1) Whether Appellan t was discriminate

d against when he was denied the position of inmate legal helper. 2) Whether Appella

nt was denied acc

ess to the courts. 3) Whether the trial court’s decision constituted judicial prejudice.
Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant demonstra tes that no genuine issues of materi al fact exist and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See T ENN
. R. C IV
. P. 56.03. We must take the strongest view of the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party , allowing all reasonable inferences in his favor and d iscardin g all countervailing evidence. See Shadrick v. Coker , 963 S.W.2 d 726, 731 ( Tenn. 1998 ) (citing Byrd v. Ha ll , 847 S.W.2d 20 8, 210-11 (Tenn. 1993)). Since our review concerns only questions of law, the trial court's judg ment is not presumed correct,and our review is de novo on the record be fore this court. See Warren v. Estate of Kirk , 954 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Tenn. 1997); Bain v. Wells , 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997). Law and Analysis First, Mr. Williams argues th at the trial court

erred in concluding that he has no constitutional right to a prison job. We disagre e. It is wel l settled that an inm ate has no constitu

tional right to prison employment or to a particular job assignment. See Newsom v. Nor ris , 888 F.2d 371 (6th

Cir. 1989); Garza v. Miller , 688 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1982). Accor

dingly, this

issue is without meri

t.
Mr. Williams also claims th at he was discrimi

nated against b

ecause he was not given the

job as inmate legal helper. In order to state a claim of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a state actor intentional ly discrimin ated against him because of the plaintiff’s-3-

membership

in a protected class. See Henry v. Metropolitan Sewer Dist. , 9 92 F.2d 332 (6th Cir. 1990). In the case at bar, Mr. Williams failed to allege that he ha d been discriminated ag

ainst because of his membership in a protected class. Instead, he argues that Defendants would not hire him because they knew he would provide effective legal assistance to the other inmates. Since Mr. Williams fails to allege t

hat he was discrim

inated against

because of his

membership in a protected class, the state must only show that its decision was rationally r elated to a legitimate governmental interest. See id. Th e affidavit of Bobby Tillma

n, a unit manage

r at West Tennesse

e State Penitentiary

, clearly states that Mr. Willia

ms is continually

disruptive and thr

eatening to

staff and other inmates. Moreover, Mr. Tillman states that since an inmate legal helper conducts many duties outside of his cell, it was the opinion of prison officials that Mr. Williams would pose a security r isk because of past behavioral problems. We find that the state’s decision was rationally related to the legitimate interest of prison security. Accordingly , we find no error in the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Williams’ discrimination claim. Next, Mr. Williams arg u es that he was den ied access to the

courts. In sup

port of this allegation, Mr. Williams alleges that his access to legal books and suppl ies is sever ely lim ited. In the affidavit of

Bobby Tillman, he stated that “[i]nmates in segregation are permitted to receive five legal books and requests for more books are us

ually gra nted. Pens, paper

, carbons, etc., are issued on a regular basis. Should additional supplies be needed, they are issued as ne cessary.” In Watson v. Norris , 729 F. Sup p. 581 (M.D . Tenn. 198 9), the cour t stated th e followin g:

[t]here is a general agreement that physical ac

cess tothe law lib rary, in the sense of unrestr

ained coming an

d going, is not co

nstitutionally nece ssa ry. ‘We are concerned with a right of access to the courts, not necessarily

to a prison law libr

ary.’ Rea

sonable time -and- place restrictions on the use of the library do no t contr avene any constitutional requirement.”
Id. at 585 (internal citations omitted). Add iti ona lly, we note that not any of the court’s conc

erns in Watson regarding a n inmate’s inability to discern what books and materials are available and relevant is present in the case at bar. A s Mr. Williams pointed out in his brief, he passed the require d test to become an inmate legal helper. Moreover , Mr. Williams included as an exhibit to Plainti ff’s Reply t

o Defendant’s Sum

m ar y JudgmentMotion his Certificate of Completion from the Southern Career Institute for an entry level paralegal. Furthermore, we note that Mr. Williams’ brief amply c ites twenty-five

cases as well as the United States Constitution, the U.S. Code, and the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, Mr. Williams is a freq uent l itigant before the courts of Tennessee. We find that the prison regulations in the case at bar are reasonabl e in their limitations, and we are confident that Mr. Williams’ access to

the courts is by n

o means frustrate

d. Accordingly

, this issue is without m

erit.
Fin all y, Mr. Williams alleges th at the trial judge

in this case committed judicial misconduct by granting summa

ry judgment to th

e Defendants. Mr. Williams alleges that the trial judge was-4-

biased towards Defendants. Upon review of the record, we fin

d that this claim is wholly without merit.
We have reviewed the entire record i

n this case and, vie

wing the evidenc

e as we must in

a light most favorable

to the nonmoving pa

rty and discarding all countervailing evidence, we find that there are no genuine

issues of material fac

t in dispute. As a re

sult, the trial cour

t was correct in i

ts grant of summar

y judgment t

o Defendants.
Conclusion Accordingly, for the aforementioned rea sons, we affirm the ruling of the trial court. Costs are t axe d to app ell ant , Ed die Wil lia ms, Jr. , fo r wh ich exe cut ion may i ssu e if nece ssa ry.

___________________________________ ALAN E. HIGHERS, JUDGE