Lacy Sivak, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the State of Idaho, Defendant-appellee, 967 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1992)

Sivak's Writ of Review is properly construed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging inadequate access to the courts. See Gluth v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, 1507 (9th Cir. 1991) (fundamental right of access to courts requires state to provide adequate law libraries or assistance); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (court must construe pleadings liberally in civil rights action where plaintiff appears pro se). The writ nevertheless must be dismissed because a section 1983 action must be brought against state officials and cannot be brought against a state. See Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (state is not a "person" for purposes of section 1983). The State of Idaho therefore is not a proper defendant. See id.

AFFIRMED.