Opinion
Case No. 02-CV-70251-DT.
January 30, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Gregory Vincent Young's pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a prisoner currently confined at the Saginaw Correctional Facility in Freeland, Michigan. Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in the amount of five thousand dollars from each of the defendants. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and now dismisses it for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he or she was deprived of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. Absent either element, a § 1983 claim will not lie. Hakken v. Washtenaw County, 901 F. Supp. 1245, 1249 (E.D. Mich. 1995). A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F. Supp. 391, 392 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLPA), district courts are required to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). If a complaint fails to pass muster under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) or § 1915A, the "district court should sua sponte dismiss the complaint." Id. at 612. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915(e)(2)(A), a district court must sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service on the defendant if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious, that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that it seeks monetary relief from a defendant or defendants who are immune from such relief. McLittle v. O'Brien, 974 F. Supp. 635, 636 (E.D. Mich. 1997)
III. COMPLAINTS
Plaintiff claims that on August 3, 2001, he submitted unspecified legal documents to be copied. The secretary of the law library, Defendant Webb, returned these documents to Plaintiff, informing him that it was necessary for him to prove that these documents were needed by the courts. Plaintiff alleges that he informed Webb that he had a deadline of August 9, 2001, to file an appeal. Plaintiff does not identify what legal claims he was pursuing in this appeal. On August 7, 2001, Defendant Webb refused to copy these legal materials for Plaintiff. After Plaintiff filed a grievance with prison officials, Defendant Webb agreed to copy the materials, but by that time, the deadline for filing the appeal had passed.
In another incident, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant B. Christian denied him the opportunity to purchase a legal footlocker to store his legal documents. Plaintiff made several complaints to obtain a legal footlocker, but nothing happened. After complaining for several weeks, Plaintiff claims that he was transferred to another prison facility. As a result of this transfer, Plaintiff alleges that several unspecified legal materials or books were lost. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' actions have denied him the right of access to the courts.
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed, because he has failed to identify the case or legal action that he was appealing from, and because he does not specify the type of legal claims that he was pursuing with the legal books that were allegedly lost.
The fundamental constitutional right of access to courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of legal papers by providing them with adequate law libraries and with assistance from persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). However, the holding in Bounds does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves into "litigating engines capable of filing everything from shareholder derivative actions to slip and fall claims." The tools that Bounds requires to be provided are those the inmates need to attack their sentences or to challenge their conditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355 (1996). This means that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts which extends to direct appeals, habeas corpus applications, and civil rights claims only. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 391 (6th Cir. 1999). A prisoner fails to state a claim for violation of the right of access to the courts, absent an allegation that the defendants hindered his pursuit of a direct criminal appeal, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or a civil rights action to vindicate his basic constitutional rights. See McCain v. Scott, 9 F. Supp.2d 1365, 1370-71 (N.D. Ga. 1998); See also Houston v. Seng, 20 Fed. Appx. 384, 385 (6th Cir. 2001) (prisoner could not establish a claim for denial of access to the courts where he could not show actual prejudice to pending or prospective litigation which challenged a sentence or conditions of confinement).
In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to allege or present evidence that his appeal involved a direct appeal of his criminal conviction, a habeas corpus action, or a civil rights action. Plaintiff has therefore failed to allege that the defendants caused him the type of injury required to support a claim based upon an infringement of his right of access to the courts. Bass v. Singletary, 143 F.3d 1442, 1445-46 (11th Cir. 1998). In addition, with respect to the lost legal books, Plaintiff has failed to identify the legal books which were lost, the litigation that he was involved in, or how the destruction of these materials was detrimental to that litigation. In Hossman v. Spradlin, 812 F.2d 1019, 1022 (7th Cir. 1987), the Seventh Circuit held that an Indiana prisoner's allegation that prison authorities lost or destroyed his legal papers and law books failed to rise to the level of a cognizable constitutional violation of the prisoner's right of meaningful access to the courts where the prisoner failed to state with specificity exactly what materials he was deprived of and how such deprivation resulted in his being denied meaningful access to the courts.
In this case, Plaintiff has likewise failed to state with specificity the legal materials that were lost or how the loss of these materials has denied him meaningful access to the courts. Because Plaintiff has failed to identify any prejudice from the loss of his legal documents, he is not entitled to relief on this claim. Sterling v. Edwards, 881 F. Supp. 488, 491 (D. Kan. 1995).
Finally, Plaintiff offers no evidence to support his claim that prison officials deliberately misplaced his legal books when he was transferred to a new prison facility. The facts alleged by Plaintiff would at best support a claim that prison officials negligently handled his legal materials. To establish an access to the courts violation under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that the violation was intentional, not merely negligent. Ruiz v. Fisher, 165 F.3d 28, 1998 WL 661139, *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 1998) (citing to Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73, 76-77 (4th Cir. 1995); Kincaid v. Vail, 969 F.2d 594, 601-02 (7th Cir. 1992)). Because Plaintiff has offered no facts to support his claim that the defendants intentionally misplaced these books, he is also not entitled to relief on this claim.
V. CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A), Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.