United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted January 18, 2017*

Decided January 18, 2017 

Before 

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge 

No. 16-2093 

CRAIG CHILDRESS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

 

GREGG SCOTT, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois. 

No. 14-3196 

Colin Stirling Bruce, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Craig Childress, a civil detainee at the Rushville Treatment and Detention 

Facility, appeals the grant of summary judgment against him in this action under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that the facility’s program director denied him access to the 

courts by maintaining a law library that was inadequate and not providing law clerks to 

help residents file legal claims. We affirm. 

 

*

 We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because 

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral 

argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 16-2093 Page 2 

Childress, having served his sentence for attempted aggravated sexual assault, is 

now detained at Rushville as a sexually violent person. See 725 ILCS § 207/40. He filed 

repeated requests with Rushville staff seeking their help in filing a state habeas corpus 

petition. The staff told Childress that they could not help him because they were not 

attorneys and recommended that he contact the courts or an attorney. 

Childress then filed a grievance, requesting that Rushville hire law clerks, allow 

inmates to help each other prepare legal filings, or “make a reasonable alternative 

available.” The grievance examiner met with Childress and stated that Rushville did not 

have an obligation to hire law clerks to help residents prepare legal documents. 

Childress contacted the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and the Circuit Court Clerk of 

Schuyler County, who both replied that they could not advise or guide him in 

preparing a habeas corpus petition. 

Childress then sued Gregg Scott, the Program Director at Rushville, asserting 

that the facility had denied him access to the courts. He also sought an injunction 

compelling the facility to improve the library, hire law clerks, stop “administrative 

interference” with filings, and provide other “reasonable alternatives.” 

Scott moved for summary judgment, arguing that Rushville’s law library 

provides adequate resources, that Childress’s rights were not violated because any 

habeas corpus petition he filed would be frivolous, and that he was represented by an 

attorney for his civil-commitment case. Scott supplemented his motion with an affidavit 

from Rushville’s library technician asserting that the library had resources that 

Childress could use to file a habeas corpus petition, including on-line access through 

Westlaw to the Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois Administrative Code, and state and 

federal case law and federal statutes, as well as the Prisoner’s Self Help Litigation 

Manual, Appellate Practice and Procedure, about ten criminal law and procedure 

casebooks, and the Illinois Court Rules & Procedure. 

Childress opposed Scott’s motion for summary judgment and submitted an 

affidavit of his own asserting that “many of the books” on the library list were missing, 

outdated, had missing pages, or lacked recent supplements; that “many of the key 

functions” on Westlaw were blocked; and that he no longer was represented by an 

attorney. 

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants because 

Childress presented no evidence from which it could be inferred that his ability to 

pursue legal claims was impaired “in any way.” Childress, the court observed, did not 
No. 16-2093 Page 3 

dispute that the library provided access to current Illinois legislation or Westlaw, that 

he had never tried to file a state habeas corpus petition, and that, in any event, filing a 

habeas corpus petition would be futile because such actions were reserved for limited 

circumstances not present here. The court also noted that he had pursued 11 cases in 

two years and was represented by an attorney in his civil case. 

On appeal Childress maintains that the library resources available to him were 

inadequate and that the district court ignored his affidavit, in which he complained that 

the books Scott listed were missing, outdated, or incomplete and that Westlaw access 

was limited due to blocked key functions. But we agree with the district court that 

Childress did not demonstrate that the prison library’s shortcomings hindered or 

prevented him from pursuing a potentially meritorious claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 

518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Devbrow v. Gallegos, 735 F.3d 584, 587 (7th Cir. 2013). An inmate 

cannot establish actual injury “simply by establishing that his prison’s law library is 

subpar in some theoretical sense.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. Childress did not, for instance, 

identify any legal resource he sought but was unable to access, see McBride v. Deer, 

240 F.3d 1287, 1290 (10th Cir. 2001), or explain why he could not conduct basic research 

with the remaining library books available to him or the limited use of Westlaw that he 

did have. Because he has not established any actual injury resulting from the prison law 

library’s alleged limited holdings, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.