Jerome Watts-El v. John Mathes, et al, No. 07-2827 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. Prison officials' judgment on claims they denied prisoner access to the courts by destroying his legal papers is affirmed as the policy limiting the amount of property was based on legitimate penological concerns and prisoner failed to comply with directives which would have allowed hm to keep some property and send the rest to a relative; further, the district court did not err in concluding plaintiff had failed to show any actual injury.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2827 ___________ Jerome E. Watts-El, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. John Mathes, Warden; Jim Helling, * Deputy Warden; John Emmitt, * [UNPUBLISHED] Security Director; Gilbert, Officer, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: February 5, 2009 Filed: February 10, 2009 ___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Iowa inmate Jerome E. Watts-El (Watts-El) claimed, in relevant part, that defendants denied him court access by destroying his legal papers. See Watts-El v. Mathes, 51 Fed. Appx. 609, 610 (8th Cir. 2002) (unpublished per curiam) (remanding for development of record on denial-of-courtaccess claim). After an evidentiary hearing in the district court,1 judgment was 1 The Honorable Thomas J. Shields, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by entered in favor of defendants based on evidence that (1) legitimate penological interests in safety, security, sanitation, and space limits supported the prison policy limiting an inmate to two boxes of property; (2) inmates could choose to have any property in excess of the allowable amounts mailed out, donated, or destroyed; and (3) Watts-El did not comply with directives from prison officials which would have afforded him an opportunity to examine and keep some of his property and retain any portion over the limit by mailing it to a relative. The court further stated that Watts-El failed to present sufficient evidence showing the destruction of his property resulted in an actual injury. Watts-El appeals. Upon careful review, see Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n.1 (8th Cir. 1993) (determining that, following a pretrial evidentiary hearing when there has been no jury demand, the district court s factual findings are reviewed for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo), we conclude defendants were entitled to judgment, see Cody v. Weber, 256 F.3d 764, 769 (8th Cir. 2001) (deciding that an inmate s right of access to the courts must be balanced against the institution s legitimate interests); Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991) (concluding a denial-of-courtaccess claim was meritless where the detainee failed to allege how he was prejudiced by any of defendants acts ). We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Watts-El s pending motions. ______________________________ consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
