Unpublished Disposition, 914 F.2d 263 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Brent Henry Sun, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Sun, who is being held in a county jail during his pending criminal proceedings, alleges that he has been denied access to a law library. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.

Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Id. A district court must afford a pro se plaintiff notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

Prisoners have a constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts which requires prison officials to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of their legal materials by providing inmates with access to an adequate law library or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 829 (1977). Moreover, the availability of court-appointed counsel satisfies the government's obligation to provide meaningful access to the courts. United States v. Wilson, 690 F.2d 1267, 1271-72 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 867 (1983).

Here, Sun seeks access to a law library despite the fact that he is represented by a public defender in his criminal proceeding.¹  Because Sun's representation by a public defender provides meaningful access to the courts, the district court properly dismissed Sun's complaint as frivolous. See id.

AFFIRMED.