Unpublished Disposition, 931 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Jerald C. Cunningham brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous prison officials at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center ("Correctional Center") based on an alleged denial of meaningful access to the courts in violation of the fourteenth amendment. Cunningham appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the grant of summary judgment. Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the law. Ashton v. Cory, 780 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir. 1986).

Cunningham contends that certain policies implemented by the Correctional Center have deprived him of meaningful access to the courts. Cunningham's appeal focuses primarily on the absence of attorneys or others trained in the law to assist him in presenting his complaints. Cunningham also alleges that various policies implemented by prison officials have rendered the Northern Nevada Correctional Center law library inadequate.

The Supreme Court has held that "the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). A prison need not furnish an adequate law library and legal assistance. Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 855-56 (9th Cir. 1985). However, if inmates have access to an adequate law library, Bounds does not require the availability of legal assistance. Id. at 855 (quoting Cepulonis v. Fair, 732 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1984)).

In satisfying the requirement of an adequate law library, "the Constitution requires that certain minimum standards be met; it does not require the maximum or even the optimal level of access." Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, " [p]rison officials of necessity must regulate the time, manner, and place in which library facilities are used." Lindquist, 776 F.2d at 858.

Depriving inmate law clerks of keys to the library and failing to provide locks for file cabinets containing legal papers do not suggest that the law library is inadequate. Cunningham also alleges that prison officials have removed a telephone from the law library. The prison, however, provides other telephones from which an inmate may communicate with an attorney. In addition, a prison need not provide typewriters for inmates. Id. (holding "condition of the library's typewriters is irrelevant, as the Constitution does not require that they be made available to inmates."). We conclude that Cunningham has failed to make any showing that the Correctional Center's law library is constitutionally inadequate.

Cunningham also contends that prison officials deprived him of meaningful access to the courts by opening his legal mail outside of his presence. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 574-77 (1974). Cunningham offers nothing to suggest that the opening of his mail, even if we assume this allegation to be true, was anything but inadvertent. Inadvertence is a form of negligence, and negligence is not sufficient to sustain a section 1983 due process claim. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332-33 (1986); see also Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1441 (9th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.