×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Prison Law Libraries Must Keep All Books Current
One of the questions presented in this case was whether a prison law library must keep current (update) those books that they are not constitutionally required to have. The case arose when prisoners initiated litigation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, over the adequacy of the law library at the Washington State Reformatory. During the trial it was determined that the prison had a complete set of United States Code Annotated, but they only updated those volumes of the set listed on the American Association of Law Libraries' (AALL's) minimum requirements list. The trial court ordered that all books in the law library be maintained, including the entire set of U.S.C.A. The state then appealed.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the lower court. The appellate court used the following language in reaching its conclusions:
"...this circuit has not established specific minimum requirements that a law library must satisfy in order to provide adequate access (citations omitted). Because there is not constitutionally mandated minimum materials list, the district court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in issuing an injunction on requiring that all the materials at the WSR law library be kept current. Even if the injunction does exceed constitutionally minimum requirements, it is not necessarily improper. '[A] federal court may order relief that the Constitution would not of its own force initially require if such relief is necessary to remedy a constitutional violation' (citations omitted). Having found the library was not up to date, the district court did not overstep the bounds of its discretion in requiring the WSR to keep all books, whether or not on the AALL list, current."
In other words, if a prison law library has legal research materials (books, etc.) it is not otherwise required to have, it must nonetheless keep those books in an updated condition.
The thing readers should now watch for is any effort by prison officials to throw away or destroy those law books not on their minimum requirement list. If anyone catches a free person law librarian trying to toss out such research materials, they should let PLN know. To a judge, throwing out law books is something akin to what destroying bibles would be to a preacher. They don't like it. We have citations in this regard and, should the matter arise, will litigate that issue, too. See, Mead v. Reed, F.2d (Case No. CV-84-1566-WLD, 9 Cir., October 21, 1991).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the lower court. The appellate court used the following language in reaching its conclusions:
"...this circuit has not established specific minimum requirements that a law library must satisfy in order to provide adequate access (citations omitted). Because there is not constitutionally mandated minimum materials list, the district court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in issuing an injunction on requiring that all the materials at the WSR law library be kept current. Even if the injunction does exceed constitutionally minimum requirements, it is not necessarily improper. '[A] federal court may order relief that the Constitution would not of its own force initially require if such relief is necessary to remedy a constitutional violation' (citations omitted). Having found the library was not up to date, the district court did not overstep the bounds of its discretion in requiring the WSR to keep all books, whether or not on the AALL list, current."
In other words, if a prison law library has legal research materials (books, etc.) it is not otherwise required to have, it must nonetheless keep those books in an updated condition.
The thing readers should now watch for is any effort by prison officials to throw away or destroy those law books not on their minimum requirement list. If anyone catches a free person law librarian trying to toss out such research materials, they should let PLN know. To a judge, throwing out law books is something akin to what destroying bibles would be to a preacher. They don't like it. We have citations in this regard and, should the matter arise, will litigate that issue, too. See, Mead v. Reed, F.2d (Case No. CV-84-1566-WLD, 9 Cir., October 21, 1991).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Mead v. Reed
| Year | 1991 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Case No. CV-84-1566-WLD, 9th Cir. Oct. 21, 1991 |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Injunction Status | Granted |
NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
(The Court's decision is referenced in a "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions" appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Edward A. MEAD, Jose Gonzalez, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Amos E. REED, et al., Defendant-Appellant.
Jose GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Amos E. REED, Joseph D. Lehman, Kenneth Ducharme, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 89-35021, 89-35026.
Submitted Oct. 10, 1991. [FN*]
Decided Oct. 21, 1991.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Jan. 10, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. CV-84-1566-WLD; William L. Dwyer, District Judge, Presiding.
W.D.Wash.
DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.
Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and HUG and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [FN**]
**1 When Jose Gonzalez and Edward Mead were housed at the Washington State Reformatory (WSR), they brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the WSR denied them adequate access to the courts. Gonzalez appeals the district court's dismissal of his damage claim at the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, and its refusal to order the WSR to expand its law library collection. [FN1] The district court did issue an injunction ordering the WSR to keep all law library materials current. The WSR appeals that ruling. We affirm.
I. Gonzalez's Appeal
A. Damages
Gonzalez's damage claim was properly dismissed. He failed to show that he suffered any injury from inadequacies in the WSR library or the mutual aid system. The magistrate's finding that Gonzalez (and Mead) "have not established that they were prejudiced or damaged in any way" by the claimed deficiencies is not clearly erroneous.
To the extent that he appeals on behalf of current WSR inmates other than himself, Gonzalez lacks standing. Third party standing is available only when the right of the third party is "inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue," and when a "genuine obstacle" exists to prevent the third party from asserting his own right. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 113-16, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). In most cases where third party standing has been recognized, "the challenged regulations or activities resulted in actual or threatened injury to the plaintiffs even though the activities infringed the constitutional rights of only third parties." Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 877 (9th Cir.1986). In this case, there is no impediment to current inmates presenting their own claims. By the same token, there is no indication that infringement of their rights would have caused injury to Gonzalez. Accordingly, he lacks standing to pursue damages on their account.
B. Injunctive relief
Gonzalez contends that the district court should have issued a broader injunction, requiring the WSR to expand its library collection. However, he is no longer incarcerated at the WSR, and no "reasonable expectation" or "demonstrated probability" exists that he will ever return to the WSR. See id. at 876. The status of the WSR law library and the WSR's mutual assistance policies no longer affect Gonzalez and are unlikely to do so in the future. As a result, Gonzalez's appeal on this point is moot. See id. [FN2]
II. WSR's Appeal
The WSR contends that the district court abused its discretion in directing that all materials in its law library be kept current, not just those on the American Association of Law Libraries' (AALL's) minimum list. We disagree.
Although prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate access to the courts, a right which the district court found to be violated in this case, a prison does not need a library sufficient to provide the inmates with the best possible access to the courts. Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 856 (9th Cir.1985). A library that meets minimum constitutional standards is sufficient. Id. However, this circuit has not established specific minimum requirements that a law library must satisfy in order to provide adequate access. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir.1987); Lindquist, 776 F.2d at 856. Because there is no constitutionally mandated minimum materials list, the district court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in issuing an injunction requiring that all the materials at the WSR law library be kept current in order to meet constitutional statndards. Having found the library was not up to date, the district court did not overstep the bounds of its discretion in requiring the WSR to keep all books, whether or not on the AALL list, current.
**2 DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.
FN* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
FN1. Mead filed no notice of appeal.
FN2. Gonzalez also claims that pro se litigants are entitled to a liberal construction of their trial advocacy. Whether or not this is true, we have generously construed Gonzalez's papers and the arguments that he presented at trial, but still find the arguments discussed above to be without merit.
END OF DOCUMENT
(The Court's decision is referenced in a "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions" appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Edward A. MEAD, Jose Gonzalez, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Amos E. REED, et al., Defendant-Appellant.
Jose GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Amos E. REED, Joseph D. Lehman, Kenneth Ducharme, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 89-35021, 89-35026.
Submitted Oct. 10, 1991. [FN*]
Decided Oct. 21, 1991.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Jan. 10, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. CV-84-1566-WLD; William L. Dwyer, District Judge, Presiding.
W.D.Wash.
DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.
Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and HUG and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [FN**]
**1 When Jose Gonzalez and Edward Mead were housed at the Washington State Reformatory (WSR), they brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the WSR denied them adequate access to the courts. Gonzalez appeals the district court's dismissal of his damage claim at the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, and its refusal to order the WSR to expand its law library collection. [FN1] The district court did issue an injunction ordering the WSR to keep all law library materials current. The WSR appeals that ruling. We affirm.
I. Gonzalez's Appeal
A. Damages
Gonzalez's damage claim was properly dismissed. He failed to show that he suffered any injury from inadequacies in the WSR library or the mutual aid system. The magistrate's finding that Gonzalez (and Mead) "have not established that they were prejudiced or damaged in any way" by the claimed deficiencies is not clearly erroneous.
To the extent that he appeals on behalf of current WSR inmates other than himself, Gonzalez lacks standing. Third party standing is available only when the right of the third party is "inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue," and when a "genuine obstacle" exists to prevent the third party from asserting his own right. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 113-16, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). In most cases where third party standing has been recognized, "the challenged regulations or activities resulted in actual or threatened injury to the plaintiffs even though the activities infringed the constitutional rights of only third parties." Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 877 (9th Cir.1986). In this case, there is no impediment to current inmates presenting their own claims. By the same token, there is no indication that infringement of their rights would have caused injury to Gonzalez. Accordingly, he lacks standing to pursue damages on their account.
B. Injunctive relief
Gonzalez contends that the district court should have issued a broader injunction, requiring the WSR to expand its library collection. However, he is no longer incarcerated at the WSR, and no "reasonable expectation" or "demonstrated probability" exists that he will ever return to the WSR. See id. at 876. The status of the WSR law library and the WSR's mutual assistance policies no longer affect Gonzalez and are unlikely to do so in the future. As a result, Gonzalez's appeal on this point is moot. See id. [FN2]
II. WSR's Appeal
The WSR contends that the district court abused its discretion in directing that all materials in its law library be kept current, not just those on the American Association of Law Libraries' (AALL's) minimum list. We disagree.
Although prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate access to the courts, a right which the district court found to be violated in this case, a prison does not need a library sufficient to provide the inmates with the best possible access to the courts. Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 856 (9th Cir.1985). A library that meets minimum constitutional standards is sufficient. Id. However, this circuit has not established specific minimum requirements that a law library must satisfy in order to provide adequate access. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir.1987); Lindquist, 776 F.2d at 856. Because there is no constitutionally mandated minimum materials list, the district court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in issuing an injunction requiring that all the materials at the WSR law library be kept current in order to meet constitutional statndards. Having found the library was not up to date, the district court did not overstep the bounds of its discretion in requiring the WSR to keep all books, whether or not on the AALL list, current.
**2 DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.
FN* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
FN1. Mead filed no notice of appeal.
FN2. Gonzalez also claims that pro se litigants are entitled to a liberal construction of their trial advocacy. Whether or not this is true, we have generously construed Gonzalez's papers and the arguments that he presented at trial, but still find the arguments discussed above to be without merit.
END OF DOCUMENT