Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 1535 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Merle L. Royse, a Washington State prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review de novo the district court's dismissal of an action under section 1915(d). Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). Dismissal under section 1915(d) is appropriate only if the action is frivolous. A frivolous claim is one that lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In pro se civil rights cases, we liberally construe pleadings and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988).

In his complaint, Royse contends that (1) he should not have to pay state sales tax on items purchased at the penitentiary because he is disenfranchised by Article VI section 3 of the Washington Constitution¹  and (2) the state should not be able to remove funds from his inmate trust account in excess of five dollars to recoup the cost of indigent postage incurred by Royse for outgoing legal mail.

Royse's first claim is based on the premise that no citizen who is denied the right to vote should be subject to taxation. The disenfranchisement of convicted felons, however, has been deemed constitutional by United States Supreme Court. See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 53-54 (1974). Accordingly, Royse's first claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Jackson, 885 F.2d at 640.

In Royse's second claim, he alleges that the removal of funds by prison officials from his inmate trust account to recoup the cost of indigent postage incurred by Royse for outgoing mail, including legal mail, violates his constitutional rights. Indigent inmates have a constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 617, 621-23 (1977). This right includes the right to "postage stamps at state expense to mail legal documents." See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987). The right to free postage, however, may be limited. See id.; see also Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358-59 (10th Cir. 1978). In King, this court stated that "a reviewing court should focus on whether the individual plaintiff before it has been denied meaningful access to the courts." 814 F.2d at 568.

Here, Royse did not allege, nor do his subsequent pleadings suggest, that he has been denied meaningful access to the courts because of the state's policy of recouping the cost of indigent postage when, and if, the inmate has sufficient funds in his account so that he is no longer considered indigent. Thus, Royse's second claim also lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, and the district court did not err in dismissing his action. See Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Jackson, 885 F.2d at 640.

AFFIRMED.