Opinion ID: 692895
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wood's Habeas Corpus Petition

Text: 15 Wood requested both legal assistance and access to the law library to prepare his habeas corpus petition to the Arizona Supreme Court. In Touissaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1110 (9th Cir.1986), we held that all prisoners are entitled to meaningful access to the courts. If the state denies a prisoner reasonable access to a law library, the state must provide that prisoner legal assistance. See also Lindquist v. Idaho State Board of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir.1985) (The existence of an adequate law library does not provide for meaningful access to the courts if the inmates are not allowed a reasonable amount of time to use the library.). 16 However, in Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir.1994), we held that a prisoner who contends that his right of access to the courts was violated because of inadequate access to a law library must show that such access caused him actual injury. Understandably, neither Wood nor the prison officials have raised the actual injury issue because Vandelft was not decided until July 26, 1994, just four days before Wood filed his pro se complaint on July 30, 1994. 17 As we noted in Hernandez, supra, leave to amend a complaint should be granted freely to pro se litigants. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and remand to the district court to grant Wood leave to amend his complaint to conform to the requirements of Vandelft. 18 REVERSED and REMANDED.