Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-2670, Section "A" (3).
July 26, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff, Charles J. Griffin, a state prisoner, filed the above-captioned pro se and in forma pauperis complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against former Sheriff Charles Foti, Jr. In the complaint, plaintiff claims that, while he was incarcerated within the Orleans Parish Prison system, his legal mail was mishandled and the law library was inadequate. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Dixon Correctional Institute, Jackson, Louisiana. Rec. Doc. 10.
Rec. Doc. 1.
Rec. Doc. 16.
Plaintiff's claim regarding the alleged mishandling of his legal mail has been dismissed. With respect to his sole remaining claim regarding the alleged inadequacies of the jail law library, defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff was ordered to file a memorandum in opposition to that motion on or before July 14, 2004; however, no such opposition has been filed.
Rec. Doc. 27.
Rec. Doc. 29.
Rec. Doc. 30.
The principal purpose of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court may grant judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "Procedurally, the party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."Taita Chemical Co., Ltd. v. Westlake Styrene Corp., 246 F.3d 377, 385 (5th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). The party opposing summary judgment must then "go beyond the pleadings and by [his] own affidavits, or by the `depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56); see also Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Goel, 274 F.3d 984, 991 (5th Cir. 2001). There is no "genuine issue" when the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmovant. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
Summary judgment will be granted against "a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Id. at 322-23.
The Court has no duty to search the record for evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment. Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998). "The party opposing summary judgment is required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise manner in which the evidence supports his or her claim."Ragas, 136 F.3d at 458. Conclusory statements, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence and will not suffice to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Id.; Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996). "[S]ummary judgment is appropriate in any case where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant." Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (5th Cir. 1994) (emphasis deleted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In his motion for summary judgment, defendant notes that the issue of the adequacy of the Orleans Parish Prison system's law library was previously litigated in this Court in Howard v. Foti, No. 82-460 c/w 84-499 (E.D. La.). In that case, the Court fashioned an order to ensure that the prison law library was constitutionally adequate. As part of that order, the Court ordered:
1. That defendant provide a central law library which will be located in the Community Correctional Center at Orleans Parish Prison. The library shall include legal materials designated by plaintiffs' library science expert, Carolyn Taylor Fitchett, as set out in recommended collections for prison and other institutional law libraries (American Association of Law Libraries, 1985) (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto).
2. That defendant provide mini-law libraries of secondary legal materials for use by inmates on each tier of each prison facility in the Orleans Parish Prison system. These secondary legal materials shall include those materials recommended by plaintiffs' library science expert, Carolyn Taylor Fitchett. (See Exhibit "B" attached hereto.) These mini-law libraries will be maintained on rolling carts on each tier.Howard v. Foti, No. 82-460 c/w 84-499, 1989 WL 152715, at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 14, 1989).
The referenced Exhibit "A" was as follows:
Title
West L.S.A. — Revised Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure
General Index
Louisiana Digest
West La. Civil Code (1 vol.)
West La. Code Civil Procedure (1 vol.)
Louisiana Shepards
Louisiana Rules of Court
So.2ds from 1978
*So.2d La. cases only from 1978
Louisiana Legal Dictionary
State of Louisiana Roster of Public Officials
Federal Practice Digest 3d
Federal Practice Procedure
West Federal Forms
U.S. Shepards
Supreme Court Reporter
* entire set
* from 1978
Harvard Law Rev., A Uniform System of Citation
Dictionary of Legal Abbreviations
The referenced Exhibit "B" was as follows:
Title
*Louisiana Criminal Code
*Black's Law Dictionary
*Squires Rombauer, Legal Writing
*Popper, Post-Conviction Remedies
*Manville, Daniel E., Prisoners Self-Help Litigation Manual (Oceana Publications, 1983)
*Manville, Daniel E., Post Conviction Litigation Self-Help Manual (Oceana Publications, 1986)
*Krantz, Sheldon, Law of Corrections and Prisoners' Rights in a Nutshell
*A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual
*Rudovsky, David, The Rights of Prisoners
In his complaint, plaintiff states: "Exhibit 10 and 11 attached shows what the law library consist of here at Orleans Parish Prison for 7,000 inmates." The referenced exhibits are two lists which essentially include the same materials, or their analogous modern equivalents, that were specified by the Court inHoward v. Foti.
Rec. Doc. 1, p. 4.
Defendant correctly argues that it was determined that the Orleans Parish Prison system's law library would be constitutionally adequate if it contained specified legal materials. He further correctly notes that, as evidenced by plaintiff's complaint and its attachments, those specified legal materials are available through the Orleans Parish Prison system's law library. Defendant therefore argues that this Court need not relitigate the very issued decided in Howard v. Foti. This Court agrees. Plaintiff has not alleged that either the facts or the law have changed since Howard v. Foti was decided. In light of those facts, as well as the fact that plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion for summary judgment, this Court looks to that precedent and finds that plaintiff's claim has no merit.
"Stare decisis is the doctrine that demands adherence to judicial precedents." Meadows v. Chevron, U.S.A. Inc., 782 F. Supp. 1189, 1192 (E.D. Tex. 1991), aff'd in part, 990 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1993). The doctrine requires that like facts be given like treatment in a court of law. See Taylor v. Charter Medical Corp., 162 F.3d 827, 832 (5th Cir. 1998). Stare decisis is not narrowly confined to parties and their privies; rather, when its application is appropriate, the doctrine is broad in impact, reaching strangers to earlier litigation. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Trabucco, 791 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, plaintiff's claim that the Orleans Parish Prison system's law library is inadequate is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.