×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
South Dakota Prisoners' Dismissed Access to Courts Claims Partly Reversed
The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has partly reversed the dismissal
of South Dakota prisoners' claims that the South Dakota Department of
Corrections (SDDC) and officials of the South Dakota State Penitentiary
(SDSP) engaged in policies and practices that denied prisoners access to
the courts.
Joseph P. Kerkhove and Lewis E. Ashker, SDDC prisoners at SDSP, sued SDDC
and SDSP officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law, claiming that SDDC
and SDSP officials forced them to abandon legal work stored on word
processors, disk-based typewriters and computers; refused to provide law
libraries or sufficient law-trained persons to help them litigate their
cases; and authorized SDSP guards to search, inspect and confiscate,
without justification, prisoners' legal papers. The prisoners claimed that
confiscated legal papers often were "accidentally" lost. Further, the legal
work abandoned on the word processors, typewriters and computers was read
by prison officials, giving them an unfair advantage in knowing the
prisoners' litigation strategies.
The South Dakota U.S. District Court dismissed prior to service under 28
U.S.C. §1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The prisoners appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the state law claims. The
appellate court also affirmed dismissal of the claims of inadequate law
libraries and lack of law-trained persons. Those claims failed because the
plaintiffs proved no actual injury (for example, a lost court case) by
prison officials' actions.
The appeals court reversed dismissal on the remaining claims, however. The
district court had held that the claims in the complaint regarding denial
of access to the word processors, etc., were conclusory. The Eighth
Circuit, though, noted that the affidavits in the complaint contained very
specific, non-conclusory allegations sufficient to state a claim for
relief. The claims of guards' searching, inspecting, reading, confiscating
and losing prisoners' legal work were reversed on the grounds that they
clearly stated a claim for relief. The claims of supervisory liability were
also reversed to give the prisoners a chance to prove that prison officials
"knowingly facilitated, approved, condoned, or turned [a] blind eye to
unconstitutional conduct."
The district court's dismissal was affirmed in part and reversed in part,
and remanded for further proceedings. This was not a ruling on the merits
of the surviving claims. This case is published in the Federal Appendix and
is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. Readers should note that
the lead plaintiff in the case was dismissed as a party. See: Waff v. South
Dakota Department of Corrections, 51 Fed.Appx. 615 (8th Cir. 2002).
of South Dakota prisoners' claims that the South Dakota Department of
Corrections (SDDC) and officials of the South Dakota State Penitentiary
(SDSP) engaged in policies and practices that denied prisoners access to
the courts.
Joseph P. Kerkhove and Lewis E. Ashker, SDDC prisoners at SDSP, sued SDDC
and SDSP officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law, claiming that SDDC
and SDSP officials forced them to abandon legal work stored on word
processors, disk-based typewriters and computers; refused to provide law
libraries or sufficient law-trained persons to help them litigate their
cases; and authorized SDSP guards to search, inspect and confiscate,
without justification, prisoners' legal papers. The prisoners claimed that
confiscated legal papers often were "accidentally" lost. Further, the legal
work abandoned on the word processors, typewriters and computers was read
by prison officials, giving them an unfair advantage in knowing the
prisoners' litigation strategies.
The South Dakota U.S. District Court dismissed prior to service under 28
U.S.C. §1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The prisoners appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the state law claims. The
appellate court also affirmed dismissal of the claims of inadequate law
libraries and lack of law-trained persons. Those claims failed because the
plaintiffs proved no actual injury (for example, a lost court case) by
prison officials' actions.
The appeals court reversed dismissal on the remaining claims, however. The
district court had held that the claims in the complaint regarding denial
of access to the word processors, etc., were conclusory. The Eighth
Circuit, though, noted that the affidavits in the complaint contained very
specific, non-conclusory allegations sufficient to state a claim for
relief. The claims of guards' searching, inspecting, reading, confiscating
and losing prisoners' legal work were reversed on the grounds that they
clearly stated a claim for relief. The claims of supervisory liability were
also reversed to give the prisoners a chance to prove that prison officials
"knowingly facilitated, approved, condoned, or turned [a] blind eye to
unconstitutional conduct."
The district court's dismissal was affirmed in part and reversed in part,
and remanded for further proceedings. This was not a ruling on the merits
of the surviving claims. This case is published in the Federal Appendix and
is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. Readers should note that
the lead plaintiff in the case was dismissed as a party. See: Waff v. South
Dakota Department of Corrections, 51 Fed.Appx. 615 (8th Cir. 2002).
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
Waff v. South Dakota Department of Corrections
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 51 Fed.Appx. 615 (8th Cir. 2002) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
[U] Waff v. South Dakota Department of Corrections, 51 Fed.Appx. 615 (8th Cir. 11/25/2002)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 01-3501
[3] 51 Fed.Appx. 615, 2002
[4] November 25, 2002
[5] DAVID A. WAFF, PLAINTIFF, JOSEPH P. KERKHOVE, APPELLANTS, JAMES E. SMITH, PLAINTIFF, LEWIS E. ASHKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JEFF BLOOMBERG, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; DOUGLAS L. WEBER, WARDEN, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE PENITENTIARY; JOSEPH P. CLASS, FORMER WARDEN SOUTH DAKOTA STATE PENITENTIARY; STEVE LEE, DEPUTY WARDEN; OWEN SPURRELL, ASC. WARDEN OF SECURITY, APPELLEES.
[6] Before Wollman, Morris Sheppard Arnold, and Melloy, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
[8] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
[9] [UNPUBLISHED]
[10] Submitted: July 25, 2002
[11] South Dakota inmates Joseph P. Kerkhove and Lewis E. Ashker *fn1 appeal from the district court's pre-service dismissal without prejudice of their civil rights action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), we affirm in part and reverse in part.
[12] Mr. Kerkhove and Mr. Ashker brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the South Dakota Department of Corrections (SDDC) and its secretary, and various South Dakota State Penitentiary (SDSP) officials. In their verified complaint and supporting affidavits, plaintiffs claimed violations of state and federal law--deprivation of property, cruel and unusual punishment, violation of the South Dakota Constitution, and denial of due process and equal protection as well as access to the courts--based on the following allegations. Due to a change in policy regarding memory and disk-based typewriters, word processors, and computers (collectively, machines), plaintiffs were forced to abandon their machines, upon which they had stored legal work and strategies and had collected case law and information for complaints. Defendants also had failed to provide a sufficient number of law-trained persons or an adequate law library, and had permanently closed law libraries in certain SDDC institutions. Finally, defendants had instituted a policy and practice authorizing SDSP employees to search and inspect, without justification, plaintiffs' legal papers in their absence. Guards in fact had read plaintiffs' legal documents, denying that they had been instructed to refrain from doing so; one guard even stated that under official policy, legal materials received by inmates were deemed personal property subject to being read and confiscated. SDSP officials at times claimed that legal materials confiscated from plaintiffs had been "accidentally" lost or destroyed. Defendants thus gained, and would continue to gain, an unfair advantage in their ability to defend against plaintiffs' claims of constitutional violations.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 01-3501
[3] 51 Fed.Appx. 615, 2002
[4] November 25, 2002
[5] DAVID A. WAFF, PLAINTIFF, JOSEPH P. KERKHOVE, APPELLANTS, JAMES E. SMITH, PLAINTIFF, LEWIS E. ASHKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JEFF BLOOMBERG, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; DOUGLAS L. WEBER, WARDEN, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE PENITENTIARY; JOSEPH P. CLASS, FORMER WARDEN SOUTH DAKOTA STATE PENITENTIARY; STEVE LEE, DEPUTY WARDEN; OWEN SPURRELL, ASC. WARDEN OF SECURITY, APPELLEES.
[6] Before Wollman, Morris Sheppard Arnold, and Melloy, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
[8] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
[9] [UNPUBLISHED]
[10] Submitted: July 25, 2002
[11] South Dakota inmates Joseph P. Kerkhove and Lewis E. Ashker *fn1 appeal from the district court's pre-service dismissal without prejudice of their civil rights action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), we affirm in part and reverse in part.
[12] Mr. Kerkhove and Mr. Ashker brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the South Dakota Department of Corrections (SDDC) and its secretary, and various South Dakota State Penitentiary (SDSP) officials. In their verified complaint and supporting affidavits, plaintiffs claimed violations of state and federal law--deprivation of property, cruel and unusual punishment, violation of the South Dakota Constitution, and denial of due process and equal protection as well as access to the courts--based on the following allegations. Due to a change in policy regarding memory and disk-based typewriters, word processors, and computers (collectively, machines), plaintiffs were forced to abandon their machines, upon which they had stored legal work and strategies and had collected case law and information for complaints. Defendants also had failed to provide a sufficient number of law-trained persons or an adequate law library, and had permanently closed law libraries in certain SDDC institutions. Finally, defendants had instituted a policy and practice authorizing SDSP employees to search and inspect, without justification, plaintiffs' legal papers in their absence. Guards in fact had read plaintiffs' legal documents, denying that they had been instructed to refrain from doing so; one guard even stated that under official policy, legal materials received by inmates were deemed personal property subject to being read and confiscated. SDSP officials at times claimed that legal materials confiscated from plaintiffs had been "accidentally" lost or destroyed. Defendants thus gained, and would continue to gain, an unfair advantage in their ability to defend against plaintiffs' claims of constitutional violations.