UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher G. Fournier

v. Civil No. 08-cv-338-JD

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Christopher G. Fournier, who is proceeding pro se, filed a

habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On

preliminary review, the magistrate judge determined that Fournier

raised three claims in his habeas petition. The Warden moved for

summary judgment on all three claims.

The motion for summary judgment apparently did not reach

Fournier for nearly a month. He then filed a motion asking the

court to continue the case until he is released on parole because

he currently lacks access to legal research facilities. The

Warden failed to respond to Fournier’s motion.

Because the court lacked information about what resources

were available to Fournier while he lived in transitional housing

at Calumet House in Manchester, the Warden was directed to

respond to Fournier’s motion. See Order, June 23, 2009 (dkt. no.

27). In particular, the Warden was asked to explain what access

Fournier has to legal research materials and whether the Warden

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 29 Filed 07/01/09 Page 1 of 4
1Contrary to the Warden’s position, Fournier is entitled to

respond to the motion for summary judgment, whether or not the

Warden or the court believes his response “would be of

assistance.”

2

objects to the continuance or stay Fournier requested. In his

response, the Warden states that the only state law library is in

Concord. The Warden agrees with Fournier that the Manchester

Public Library does not provide the materials Fournier would need

to conduct legal research for his habeas proceeding. 

The Warden suggests, however, that because the Manchester

Public Library offers one hour of free internet use each day to

its cardholders, Fournier could conduct on-line legal research at

the library. In support of that approach, the Warden notes that

citations for court cases can be found on the internet. The

Warden argues that because all of the cases cited in its

memorandum in support of summary judgment can be found on the

internet and because additional briefing of the issues by

Fournier is not likely to assist the court in deciding the motion

for summary judgment, no further access to legal materials is

necessary.1

Prisoners are entitled to “adequate, effective, and

meaningful” access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,

822 (1977). As part of the right to access the courts, prisoners

must be provided tools that are needed, among other things, to

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 29 Filed 07/01/09 Page 2 of 4
2To state a claim based on denial of access, a prisoner must

also demonstrate that the deprivation caused him actual injury. 

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351-52.

3

pursue a habeas corpus action. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355

(1996). Prison authorities, therefore, must provide prisoners

with access to legal research facilities or, alternatively, to

legal assistance that is necessary to allow a reasonably adequate

opportunity to access the courts.2 See Christopher v. Hardy, 536

U.S. 403, 413 (2002) (citing cases); Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828;

Wade v. Brady, 460 F. Supp. 2d 226, 250 (D. Mass. 2006) (same).

The Warden’s response is inadequate to determine whether

Fournier is afforded access to legal research facilities or

materials that allow him a reasonable opportunity to access the

courts. Fournier cannot be limited to looking up the cases, on

the internet, cited by the Warden in his memorandum. Instead,

Fournier is entitled to an opportunity to research the issues

that the Warden challenges for purposes of summary judgment. 

From the Warden’s response, it is unclear whether Fournier would

have access to a legal research site, such as LEXIS or WESTLAW,

through the Manchester Public Library.

Although the Warden appears to consider it unnecessary, the

Warden does not object to an extension of time for Fournier to

respond to the motion. Fournier has asked for an extension of

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 29 Filed 07/01/09 Page 3 of 4
4

time until after he is released on parole, which date is not yet

certain, although he apparently is scheduled for parole on July

18, 2009. Neither Fournier nor the Warden anticipate that a

delay will prejudice the case.

Therefore, Fournier is granted an extension of time to

respond to the Warden’s motion for summary judgment until August

1, 2009. No further extensions of time will be granted unless

Fournier shows that he is unable to conduct legal research due to

the restraints imposed by his incarceration. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for an

extension of time (document no. 26) is granted to the extent that

the deadline for filing the plaintiff’s response to the

respondent’s motion for summary judgment is extended to August 1,

2009.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 1, 2009

cc: Christopher G. Fournier, pro se

Stephen D. Fuller, Esquire

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 29 Filed 07/01/09 Page 4 of 4