Opinion
No. 04-13-00086-CV
11-05-2013
ONE (1) 1992 CHEVROLET PK, 1GCEC14Z4NE164549, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-CI-13890
Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant filed his pro se opening brief on August 28, 2013. The State filed its brief on October 28, 2013. In the State's brief, it conceded error as to Appellant's ninth issue. The State prayed that this court reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for a new trial.
On October 29, 2013, Appellant filed a motion for injunctive relief, a motion to reopen discovery, a request for disclosure, and a request for production.
Appellant moves for injunctive relief based on his assertion that he is being denied reasonable access to an adequate law library. "[Inmates] have a constitutional right of access to the courts." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). One method for ensuring an inmate's right of access to the courts is for prison authorities to provide a pro se inmate with reasonable access to an adequate law library. Id. at 821, 828; see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Dunn v. State, 819 S.W.2d 510, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Thomas v. Brown, 927 S.W.2d 122, 125-26 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied). However, a penal institution may limit an inmate's access to a law library if the limitation is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Thomas, 927 S.W.2d at 126 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) ("[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.")). To obtain relief from the courts, an inmate must "demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library . . . hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351 (discussing actionable harm warranting relief); see Thomas, 927 S.W.2d at 125-26 (requiring an inmate to show both unreasonable access and actual injury). Appellant has not alleged or shown actionable harm. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Thomas, 927 S.W.2d at 125-26. Appellant's motion for injunctive relief is DENIED without prejudice.
Appellant's discovery motions are also DENIED. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.2-.4 (addressing discovery periods).
__________________
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of November, 2013.
__________________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court