IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 19, 2011
STEVEN WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
DIAL, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
On August 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a "motion for a protective order" in which he alleges that, due to an "extended institutional lockdown," no inmates, including priority legal users, have been given law library access for an unspecified period of time. Plaintiff claims that this constitutes a due process violation and seeks injunctive relief granting him access to the prison law library. He alleges imminent harm from a lack of access to legal materials, and incorrectly states that this action has a trial date of September 9, 2011. In fact, that is the pretrial motion deadline. (Dkt. No. 101 at 6.)
The previously assigned magistrate judge denied a similar motion of plaintiff's in November 2009, and the court refers plaintiff to the legal standard set forth therein. (Dkt. No. 65.) In short, an inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-821 (1977). To prevail on a request for relief, however, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial: he must also show "actual injury" from the denial or delay of services." Lewis. v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Here as before, "[i]f prison officials have denied this plaintiff legal materials, that denial has not blocked plaintiff from filing the instant motion or . . . numerous other requests for relief[.]" (Dkt. No. 65 at 2.) The court finds that plaintiff has not shown actual injury from the alleged denial of services.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff's August 10, 2011 motion for protective order (Dkt. No. 119) is denied.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.