1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DWIGHT RASHAD, 

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:08-CV-14983

v. HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BLAINE LAFLER,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

ACCESS TO CASE AUTHORITIES AVAILABLE ONLY IN ELECTRONIC

DATABASES AND OTHER ACCESS-LIMITED PUBLICATIONS

Dwight Rashad, (“Petitioner”), presently confined at the Carson City Correctional

Facility in Carson City, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro se application, Petitioner challenges his conviction for

possession of over 650 grams of cocaine, M.C.L.A. 333.7403(2)(a)(i). Respondent has

yet to respond to the petition for writ of habeas corpus and has until June 8, 2009 to do so.

Petitioner has filed a motion for access to case authorities that are available only in

electronic databases such as LEXIS and WESTLAW, which he does not have access to as

a prisoner, as well as to certain volumes of certain published federal and state cases that

are not currently part of the prison library where Petitioner is incarcerated. Petitioner has

asked this Court to issue an order requiring respondent’s counsel to provide Petitioner

with paper copies of any unreported decisions or unavailable decisions that he or she cites

to in the answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, so that he can respond to

2:08-cv-14983-VAR-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 177
1

 This opinion amends and supersedes the original opinion cited to by Petitioner in his motion. 

2

Respondent’s answer. In the alternative, Petitioner asks this Court to order the prison

librarian to provide him with paper copies of any such unreported decisions, unavailable

opinions, or decisions.

This Court is concerned about the impact on the appearance of justice when an

incarcerated pro se litigant like Petitioner lacks access to cases or court rules that are

available only on electronic databases like LEXIS and WESTLAW, “thereby hampering

the litigants’ opportunities to understand and assert their legal rights.” See Lebron v.

Sanders, 557 F.3d 76, 78 (2nd Cir. 2009). 1

 Because it appears that Petitioner lacks access

to these electronic databases at the prison library, this Court will order respondent’s

counsel to provide Petitioner with paper copies of any unpublished decisions and

electronically-available-only opinions that he or she may cite to in their answer to the

petition. Id. at 79. Because the prison library lacks certain hard bound volumes of

published cases, this Court will further order respondent to provide paper copies of any

decisions that it might cite to from the following volumes, which Petitioner claims are

unavailable at his prison library: The United States Supreme Court Reporter, Volumes 1-

89; Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Volumes 1-420; Federal Supplement, Volumes 1-306;

Michigan Reports, Volumes 1-377; and Michigan Appeals Reports, Volumes 1-147.

To the extent that Petitioner is asking this Court to order improvements at the

prison library at the Carson City Correctional Facility, he should bring this as a separate

2:08-cv-14983-VAR-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 178
3

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An inmate should bring a claim challenging

the conditions of confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Lutz v.

Hemingway, 476 F. Supp. 2d 715, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2007). Petitioner’s claim that he is

being denied meaningful access to a law library should not be brought as part of this

habeas action, but should instead be brought as a separate civil action under § 1983. See

Veal v. Cooper, 936 F. Supp. 511, 512, n. 2 (N.D. Ill. 1996). Moreover, because

Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Carson City Correctional Facility, the Court

concludes that venue for any § 1983 lawsuit would lie in the Western District of

Michigan, where Petitioner is confined and where he alleges that he has been denied

access to the law library. Hinds v. State of Tennessee, 888 F. Supp. 854, 856 (W.D. Tenn.

1995).

Based upon the foregoing, the motion for access to case authorities is GRANTED

IN PART. Respondent’s counsel shall provide Petitioner with paper copies of any

unpublished decisions and electronically-available-only opinions that he or she may cite

to in their answer to the petition, as well as any published decisions from the volumes

listed above that are not available to Petitioner. 

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: April 10, 2009

2:08-cv-14983-VAR-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 179
4

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

and Dwight Rashad by electronic means or U.S.

Mail on April 10, 2009.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-14983-VAR-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 180