Unpublished Disposition, 878 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 878 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1989)

Dennis H. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Dorothy C. VIGIL, Assistant Warden; Nancy Hagler, LawLibrarian, CPO Fiezer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-2853.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  June 5, 1989.Decided June 20, 1989.

Before TANG, CANBY and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Dennis H. Adams, a prisoner in the Arizona state prison system, appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction and the dismissal of his Sec. 1983 civil rights claim. We affirm.

Adams, a pro se plaintiff, filed suit against several prison officials and employees alleging inadequate access to the law library. He subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs, that he should be reclassified to join the general prison population, and that his indigent mail status was being questioned.

Adams did not meet the burden of showing the possibility of imminent irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits of his claims for injunctive relief. See Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 1987). There was no deliberate indifference to his medical needs where Adams failed to comply with the regulation requiring that a prison jumpsuit be worn to all medical appointments. His appointment with the dentist was not of an emergency nature, and he was later rescheduled.

Adams has no constitutional right to remain in the general prison population. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-68 (1983); McFarland v. Cassady, 779 F.2d 1426, 1428-29 (9th Cir. 1986). Adams does not allege that Arizona statutes or prison regulations give him a liberty interest in a particular classification, and he apparently did not use the review procedures to appeal his classification. As for his indigent mail status claim, defendants agree that he is entitled to indigent status, but he must reapply, on a monthly basis, in a timely manner.

The district court was correct in its analysis of Adams' inadequate access to law library claim. Even if everything that Adams alleged in his complaint is accepted as true, Adams could not recover from the defendants. Prisoners are entitled to reasonable access to the law library. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1109 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). In the time period at issue, Adams alleges he was scheduled for time in the law library on January 16th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, and 23rd. The following week he visited the library five days for four hours each day. We agree with the district court that this is reasonable access.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3