Opinion ID: 677095
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Mail

Text: 4 We find the magistrate judge's decision to be without error, 2 and see no reason to repeat his well-reasoned analysis. We note, however, that the reformatory's contention that our recent case, Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110 (8th Cir.1994), somehow renders the magistrate judge's actions erroneous is without merit. Hamm holds that prison law clerks have no standing to bring an action on behalf of the inmates whom they are allegedly prevented from adequately aiding. While Hamm notes that an inmate alleging denial of access to the courts must show actual injury or prejudice, see McMaster v. Pung, 984 F.2d 948, 953 (8th Cir.1993), a systemic denial of inmates' constitutional right of access to the courts is such a fundamental deprivation that it is an injury in itself. 3 See Alston v. DeBruyn, 13 F.3d 1036, 1041 (7th Cir.1994); Sowell v. Vose, 941 F.2d 32, 34 (1st Cir.1991); Foster v. Basham, 932 F.2d 732, 734 (8th Cir.1991); Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1063 (11th Cir.1991); Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.1989); see also Smith v. Erickson, 961 F.2d 1387, 1388 (8th Cir.1992) (Smith II ); Smith v. Erickson, 884 F.2d 1108, 1111 (8th Cir.1989) (Smith I ). Because the magistrate judge's analysis and actions fall well within the dictates of Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824-25, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1496-97, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), we affirm his orders relating to legal mail. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.