UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randolph L. Chambers

v. Civil No. 04-cv-397-JD

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Randolph L. Chambers is an inmate housed in the

Close Custody Unit (“CCU”) at the New Hampshire State Prison for

Men (“NHSP”). In this lawsuit, he claims that the Defendant,

Warden of the NHSP, is unlawfully denying him his constitutional

right of access to the courts. Plaintiff has filed a motion for

an injunction and damages (document no. 5).

This matter was referred to me to review and to prepare a

report and recommendation. The Defendant filed an objection. 

The Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 4, 2005. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s

motion be denied.

Standard of Review

A district court may grant a plaintiff’s request for a

preliminary injunction if the plaintiff satisfies a four-part

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 15
2

test: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the

action; (2) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the

injunction is not granted; (3) the injury to the plaintiff

outweighs any harm which granting the injunction would inflict on

the defendant; and (4) the public interest will not be adversely

affected by the granting of the injunction. See Langlois v.

Abington Hous. Auth., 207 F.3d 43, 47 (1st Cir. 2000); Public

Serv. Co. v. Patch, 167 F.3d 15, 25 (1st Cir. 1998). A party

seeking injunctive relief must independently satisfy each of the

four factors. See Auburn News Co. v. Providence Journal Co., 659

F.2d 273, 277 (1st Cir. 1981).

Background

New Hampshire Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure

Directive (“PPD”) 7.20, IV(A)(2)(f) provides in pertinent part

that:

1. CCU inmates will do legal research using the two

law computers located in their unit. They have a

small collection of legal books in their library

to help in writing and research.

2. If individuals need to do more research using the

books that remain in the library proper they will

submit a library request form (Attachment 7).

Their request will be reviewed to confirm that the

stated materials are available in the library. 

The request will then be returned to CCU so that

the supervising personnel may authorize their

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 15
Plaintiff references his petition for a writ of habeas 1

corpus in this district court. See Civil No. 04-cv-258-JD

(document no. 2). This Court found after preliminarily reviewing

the petition that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that he had

exhausted his state court remedies before filing his petition. 

At Plaintiff’s request, the Court entered an order staying the

federal habeas proceedings while the Plaintiff returned to state

court to exhaust his remedies. Id. (document no. 4). Plaintiff

does not specify the claims that he is now pursuing in state

court in his motion for injunctive relief.

3

movement to the library on Wednesday afternoon

from 1500 to 1600 hours. There will be a maximum

of four (4) inmates allowed during that time so

that those inmates may receive the undivided

attention of the law library staff.

Def.’s Ex. A. Plaintiff alleges that the library policies that

apply to CCU inmates unlawfully hinder his efforts to purse his

claims in an open state court case. He challenges the 1

requirement that CCU inmates rely primarily on the CCU library

for legal research, and the allotment of only one hour per week

for CCU inmates to have physical access to the main library. 

Plaintiff further asserts that the prison should be required to

provide a law clerk for the CCU library. The evidence pertaining

to Plaintiff’s allegations are discussed below.

I. CCU Library

 There is no dispute that the CCU library has only a small

collection of written legal materials in addition to two

computers that are available for inmates to conduct legal

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 3 of 15
Loislaw is a legal database accessible on a computer either 2

through the internet or with CD-ROMs that enables the user to

search for specified data. 

4

research. According to Plaintiff, the CCU library has the

following written materials: (1) Annual Review of Criminal

Procedure 2003; (2) Prisoners Litigation Manual; (3) Black’s Law

Dictionary; (4) United States District Court Local Rules; (5)

Department of Safety Hearing Rules; (6) United States District

Court Pro Se Litigation Guide; (7) Judges Handbook Sentencing

Alternatives; (8) Judges Handbook -- Supplement; (9) Parole Book;

(10) New Hampshire Department of Corrections Handbook 1999; and

(11) a copy of the Laaman Decree. See Pl.’s Ex. D. Defendant

did not dispute the accuracy of Plaintiff’s list except to add

that a copy of Gilbert’s citations, which Plaintiff alleged the

CCU library needed, has been provided.

Ms. Rebecca Harding, NHSP media generalist, testified that

the CCU library computers provide inmates access to a wide range

of legal materials available on Loislaw. Ms. Harding testified 2

that CD-ROMS are available in the CCU library that enable inmates

to access cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, cases

decided by all thirteen federal judicial circuits, and all cases,

rules and regulations from the states of New Hampshire, Vermont,

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 4 of 15
5

Maine and Massachusetts. The information stored on the CD-ROMs

in the CCU library is current through June 2004. CCU inmates can

obtain more current material at the main library, and can request

that Harding forward copies of materials. 

Inmates are required to submit a request slip asking to use

the CCU library before access is granted. The prison does not

specify any particular “library time” for the CCU library,

although Plaintiff asserts that inmates are not permitted to use

the library at night. Sgt. James Roy, a corrections official

assigned to CCU, testified that he allows CCU inmates to stay in

the CCU library as long as they need to be there. In some

instances inmates have stayed as short as ten minutes; at other

times inmates have been allowed to stay in the library for as

long as three hours. Sgt. Roy further testified, contrary to

Plaintiff’s suggestion, that inmates who are using the CCU

library for legal research are not required to leave the room

when a class is being held there.

Sgt. Roy testified that Plaintiff has only submitted one

request slip to use the CCU library since he returned to CCU from

the Special Housing Unit approximately four weeks ago. Sgt. Roy

further testified that Plaintiff has used the computers in the

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 5 of 15
While Ms. Harding testified there are no available time 3

slots on the library’s schedule that could be allocated to

provide additional time to CCU inmates, Defendant does not rely

on this fact as a reason for denying Plaintiff additional access.

6

CCU library in the past. Plaintiff does not allege that he is

incapable of accessing information on the CCU computers. 

II. CCU Inmate Access to the Main Library

Plaintiff alleges that there is no orderly basis for

determining which CCU inmates are permitted to go to the main

library on any given week, and that, in any event, the amount of

time that is provided is too small to allow for meaningful

research. Plaintiff argues that he should be granted the same

access to the main library as general population inmates. 

Defendant responds that the one hour of time per week that

Plaintiff is permitted physical access to the main library,

combined with his access to all of the main library’s materials

through request slips to the librarian, is sufficient to allow

Plaintiff meaningful access to all of the library’s resources. 

3

Sgt. Roy testified that Plaintiff need only submit a request

slip in advance to be allowed to go the main library. Although

there are some CCU inmates who go to the main library on a

regular basis, not every slot is filled every week. Ms. Harding

testified that more often than not fewer than four CCU inmates go

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 6 of 15
7

to the main library each week. And while PPD 7.20,

IV(A)(2)(f)(2), specifies that only four CCU inmates may go to

the main library at one time, Ms. Harding and Sgt. Roy concurred

that there have been occasions when more than four CCU inmates

have been allowed to go to the main library at one visit. Sgt.

Roy testified that if a particular inmate requests to go to the

library but does not make the list for that week, then that

inmate would be allowed to go to the library the following week.

III. Lack of a CCU Library Law Clerk

Plaintiff complains that the CCU library, unlike the main

library and the Special Housing Unit library, does not have any

inmate law clerks. Ms. Harding testified that whether a law

clerk is employed in the CCU library is a decision that the

prison officials who run CCU would need to make. Plaintiff did

not indicate whether he has ever specifically requested that the

prison provide a law clerk for CCU.

Discussion

I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

It is well-settled that inmates have a constitutionally

protected right of meaningful access to the courts. See Bounds

v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 7 of 15
8

539, 556 (1974); Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d 36, 42 (1st Cir.

2000). This right, however, only “‘requires prison authorities

to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful

legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries

or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Carter

v. Fair, 786 F.2d 433, 435 (1st Cir. 1986) (quoting Bounds, 430

U.S. t 828)).

To establish a claim based on denial of access to the court,

a plaintiff must allege that he suffered an actual injury as a

result of the defendant’s actions. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

343, 351-52 (1996). An inmate cannot establish relevant actual

injury simply by alleging that “his prison’s law library or legal

assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id. at

351. He must demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the

law library or legal assistance program “hindered his efforts to

pursue a legal claim.” Id.; see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536

U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (the right of access to the courts “is

ancillary to the underlying claim, without which a plaintiff

cannot have suffered injury by being shut out of court.”). 

[A prisoner] might show, for example, that a complaint

he prepared was dismissed for failure to satisfy some

technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in

the prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 8 of 15
9

have known. Or that he had suffered arguably

actionable harm that he wished to bring before the

courts, but was so stymied by inadequacies of the law

library that he was unable even to file a complaint.

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.

The right of access to the courts is not unlimited. A

prison regulation or practice may interfere with a fundamental

constitutional right if it bears a rational relation to

legitimate penological interests. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539

U.S. 126, 132 (2003); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). 

Thus, even if a plaintiff is able to establish that the

challenged library policies actually impede his right to access

the courts, he is not entitled to relief if the policies satisfy

this requirement.

In this case, Plaintiff argues that he is being denied

adequate access to the courts because the CCU library does not

have the same access to legal materials, particularly law books,

as the main prison library. Plaintiff argues that he is unable

to adequately present his claims to the state court because of

the CCU library’s deficiencies and his extremely limited access

to the main library. Plaintiff requests that the court order the

Defendant to provide him access to the main prison library at

least 15 hours per week. He further requests that the NHSP be

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 9 of 15
10

ordered to hire a law clerk for the CCU library.

Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a

likelihood of success on the merits of his claim because he has

not alleged sufficient facts to establish that the policies of

which he complains has resulted in actual injury. Defendant

further argues that the evidence demonstrates that CCU inmates

are provided meaningful to legal materials, and that the policy

limiting CCU inmates to one-hour visits once a week to the main

library is related to a valid penological interest. The Court

agrees with each of the Defendant’s arguments.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not identified any

specific claim that has been thwarted based on his claim of lack

of meaningful access to legal materials. While Plaintiff alleges

that he needs to exhaust his state court remedies, he has not

identified any claim that he has been unable to adequately

present to the court because of his lack of access to legal

materials. Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate the existence of

an actual injury is sufficient by itself to warrant a denial of

his motion for injunctive relief. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff is being provided

meaningful access to resources that would enable him to

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 10 of 15
11

adequately present his claims to the state court. The evidence

demonstrates that Plaintiff is provided access to a small

collection of guides and a wide-range of legal authorities on

Loislaw in the CCU library. The only book that Plaintiff

specifically identified at the hearing as absent from the CCU

library, a copy of Gilbert’s, was provided to the CCU unit prior

to the hearing. The evidence further showed that Plaintiff has

access to the materials in the main library for one hour each

week as long as he submits a timely request, and that he has the

ability to obtain copies of materials from the main library

through request slips. 

Plaintiff’s underlying concern appears to be that he would

prefer greater access to hardbound volumes rather than be limited

to materials in electronic format on a computer. The Court

notes, however, that Plaintiff has not alleged that he is

incapable of accessing information on the computers provided in

the CCU library. Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegation that he could

not conduct research on the CCU library computers while classes

were being held in the library was contradicted by Sgt. Roy. The

Court appreciates that the CCU library may not provide the

optimal solution for Plaintiff. “However, the Prison need not

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 11 of 15
12

provide its inmates with a library that results in the best

possible access to the courts.” Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of

Corr., 776 F.2d 851, 856 (9th Cir. 1985). It need only provide

sufficient resources to meet minimum constitutional standards. 

Id. Based on the evidence presented, the resources available to

the Plaintiff appear to be adequate to enable Plaintiff to

present his claims to the state court.

With regard to Plaintiff’s request for an inmate law clerk

in the CCU library, the Court notes that under the Supreme

Court’s “right-of-access precedents, inmates have a right to

receive legal advice from other inmates only when it is a

necessary means for ensuring a reasonably adequate opportunity to

present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights

to the courts.” Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 231 n.3 (2001)

(quotations and citations omitted). The evidence demonstrates

that the prison provides CCU inmates adequate access to legal

materials to enable those inmates to exercise their right of

access to the courts. An injunction ordering the Defendant to

provide a law clerk for the CCU library is not warranted.

Yet another reason for denying Plaintiff’s request for

injunctive relief is the Defendant’s argument that limiting CCU

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 12 of 15
13

inmates to one-hour visits once a week to the main library is

related to a valid penological interest. “[W]hen a prison

regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the

regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to penological

interests.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89.

There is no dispute that CCU inmates are subjected to a

higher level of custody, and greater restrictions, than inmates

in the general population for security reasons. Defendant

asserts that limiting CCU inmates’ access to the main library is

necessary to maintain order. The Supreme Court has held that if

a prison’s regulations are reasonably related to legitimate

penological interests, delays that Plaintiff may experience in

obtaining legal materials is without constitutional significance,

even if the restriction results in an actual injury. See Lewis,

518 U.S. at 362. The Plaintiff’s failure to rebut the

Defendant’s argument that a reasonable penological interest

exists for limiting CCU inmates’ access to the main library

fatally undermines his right of access claim. See Overton, 539

U.S. at 132 (finding that the burden is on the prisoner to

disprove the validity of prison regulations).

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 13 of 15
14

II. Other Preliminary Injunction Factors

The Court finds that a preliminary injunction is not

warranted on this record because the Plaintiff has demonstrated

that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Since a party

seeking a preliminary injunction must independently satisfy each

preliminary injunction factor, the Court does not address the

remaining factors. See Auburn News, 659 F.2d at 277.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court recommends that

the Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction and damages (document

no. 5) be denied.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 11, 2005

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 14 of 15
15

cc: Randolph L. Chambers, pro se

Laura E. B. Lombardi, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00397-JD Document 17 Filed 05/11/05 Page 15 of 15