×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
South Carolina District Court Affirms Magistrate’s Dismissal of Prisoner’s § 1983 Action Alleging Denial of Legal Access
South Carolina District Court Affirms Magistrate’s Dismissal of Prisoner’s § 1983 Action Alleging Denial of Legal Access
By Derek Gilna
In an action brought by prisoner Korell Robert Floyd Battle against Sheriff James R. Metts, Scott McDermoth, Ronald O'Neil, and Christiana Bates under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for alleged violations of his First Amendment rights, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina has upheld a magistrate's Report and Recommendation dismissing the cause.
The prisoner had filed his pro-se action claiming denial of access to the courts based upon the denial of a law book that was mailed to him in a package mailed to him in a package from his aunt, failure to provide free postage, and failure to provide access to an adequate library or assistance from persons trained in the law to assist on various matters.
In upholding the dismissal, the court agreed that the prisoner's transfer from the Laurens County Detention Center, where the alleged actions took place, renders the injunctive and declaratory relief issues moot. The court also agreed with the magistrate in failing to find that the actions of defendants caused actual harm sufficient to sustain a claim for denial of access to the courts, and additionally that "Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he suffered actual harm or that the claims he is pursuing are not frivolous." See: Battle v. Metts, C/A No. 8:07-cv-466-GRA-BHH (D. S. Carolina, 2008).
By Derek Gilna
In an action brought by prisoner Korell Robert Floyd Battle against Sheriff James R. Metts, Scott McDermoth, Ronald O'Neil, and Christiana Bates under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for alleged violations of his First Amendment rights, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina has upheld a magistrate's Report and Recommendation dismissing the cause.
The prisoner had filed his pro-se action claiming denial of access to the courts based upon the denial of a law book that was mailed to him in a package mailed to him in a package from his aunt, failure to provide free postage, and failure to provide access to an adequate library or assistance from persons trained in the law to assist on various matters.
In upholding the dismissal, the court agreed that the prisoner's transfer from the Laurens County Detention Center, where the alleged actions took place, renders the injunctive and declaratory relief issues moot. The court also agreed with the magistrate in failing to find that the actions of defendants caused actual harm sufficient to sustain a claim for denial of access to the courts, and additionally that "Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he suffered actual harm or that the claims he is pursuing are not frivolous." See: Battle v. Metts, C/A No. 8:07-cv-466-GRA-BHH (D. S. Carolina, 2008).
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
Battle v. Metts
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | C/A No. 8:07-cv-466-GRA-BHH (D. S. Carolina, 2008) |
| Level | District Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |