Chapman v. Troutt

Full title: CHRIS CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, v. SONYA TROUTT, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

Date published: Jan 14, 2011

NO. 3:10-1009 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2011)

Opinion

NO. 3:10-1009.

January 14, 2011

ORDER

JOHN BRYANT, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Chapman has filed his "Motion For Adequate Library Access" (Docket Entry No. 9). By this motion he seeks an order requiring the Tennessee Department of Corrections (TDOC) to provide what he characterizes as adequate access to the law library.

The TDOC is not a party to this case and almost certainly is unaware of plaintiff's motion.

The law is well settled that a prisoner has a First Amendment right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821-23 (1977). The right of access to the courts requires prison officials to ensure that inmates have access to the courts that is "adequate, effective and meaningful." Id. at 822. To ensure the meaningful exercise of this right, prison officials are under an affirmative obligation to provide inmates with access to an adequate law library, Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 931 (6^th Cir. 1985), or some alternative form of legal assistance,Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 419 (1974) (overruled on other grounds by Thornburg v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989)). Meaningful access varies with the circumstances, and prison officials are accorded discretion in determining how that right is to be administered.Bounds, 430 U.S. at 830-31. However, it is not enough for plaintiff simply to claim that he was denied access to the courts, or that he did not have access to an adequate law library or to some alternate form of legal assistance. To state a claim on which relief may be granted, plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct in some way prejudiced the filing or prosecution of a legal matter. Walker, 771 F.2d at 932; Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6^th Cir. 1996).

In this case, the plaintiff has not alleged that any of TDOC's conduct prejudiced his filing or prosecution of a legal matter.Id. Indeed, despite the conduct about which the plaintiff complains, he successfully has filed a complaint and multiple motions in this matter.

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that plaintiff's motion should be DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.