Conner v. Lowndes County Adult Detention Center et al, No. 1:2015cv00005 - Document 21 (N.D. Miss. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 20 Final Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Glen H. Davidson on 8/13/15. (rel)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Conner v. Lowndes County Adult Detention Center et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION TABARRIS D. CONNER PLAINTIFF v. No. 1:15CV5-GHD-JMV LOWNDES COUNTYADULT DETENTION CENTER, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint ofTabarris D. Conner, who challenges the conditions ofhis confmement under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. For the purposes ofthe Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants denied his access to the courts and that the sanitation at the Lowndes County Adult Detention Center is poor. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Factual Allegations Tabarris Conner alleges that, on September 23, 2014, during his stay in the Lowndes County Adult Detention Center ("LCADC"), he repeatedly requested legal materials to assist with research regarding his ongoing criminal case. The defendants denied his requests each time, stating that he must direct all of his requests for legal assistance to the attorney appointed to defend him. He also states, without elaboration, that the facility had "poor sanitation" and "inadequate bedding and underwear" for the inmates. He has not alleged that these conditions caused him any harm - or even discomfort. Dockets.Justia.com Denial of Access to the Courts As the plaintiff had adequate access to the courts through counsel appointed to defend his criminal case - and as he has alleged no hann from lack ofaccess to a legal library - his claim for denial ofaccess to the courts should be denied. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,821 (1977), prisoners possess a constitutional right ofaccess to courts, including having the "ability ... to prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to court." Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1328 (5 th Cir. 1996), quoting Brewer v. Wilkinson,3 F.3d 816, 821 (5 th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1123 (1994). The right ofaccess to the courts is limited to allow prisoners opportunity to file nonfrivolous claims challenging their convictions or conditions ofconfinement. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322,325 (5 th Cir. 1999). "Interference with a prisoner's right to access to the courts, such as delay, may result in a constitutional deprivation." Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313,317 (5 th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). However, "[a] denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim is not valid if a litigant's position is not prejudiced by the alleged violation." Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5 th Cir. 1998); Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5 th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 988 (1992), citing Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 122 (5 th Cir. 1988). It is only when a prisoner suffers some sort ofactual prejudice or detriment from denial of access to the courts that the allegation becomes one ofconstitutional magnitude. Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5 th Cir. 1993); see Howlandv. Kilquist, 833 F.2d 639,642 (7th Cir. 1987). To prove his claim, a plaintiff must show real detriment - a true denial of access - such as the loss of a motion, the loss ofa right to commence, prosecute or appeal in a court, or substantial delay in obtaining a judicial determination in a proceeding. See Oaks v. Wainwright, 430 F.2d 241 (5 th Cir. 1970). -2- An inmate's right of access to the courts may be fulfilled in ways other than access to a law library. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351,116 S.Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996). The right of access to the courts is not "an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance[;] an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense." Id. In this case, the plaintiffs access to the courts is through the counsel appointed him, "[f]or, once the State has provided a petitioner with an attorney in [his legal] proceedings, it has provided him with the 'capability of bringing contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts.'" Lamp v. Iowa, 122 F.3d 1100, 1106 (8 th Cir.1997), quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996); see also Schrier v. Halford, 60 F.3d 1309, 1313-1314 (8 th Cir.1995) (having appointed counsel is one way in which state can shoulder its burden of assuring access to the courts); Sanders v. Rockland County Correctional Facility, No. 94 Civ. 3691, 1995 WL 479445 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 1995) ("By the appointment of counsel, plaintiff was afforded meaningful access to the courts in his trial.") When a state provides adequate legal assistance to a prisoner, the state has fulfilled its obligation to provide him access to the courts - and need not provide access to a law library. "Inmates are entitled to either adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law, but certainly not both." Meeks v. California Dep't o/Corrections, 1993 WL 330724 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 1993), citing Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828. The plaintiff had counsel appointed to defend him against criminal charges; as such, he has adequate access to the courts. In addition, he has not alleged that his lack of access to a law library cause prejudice to a legal position. For these reasons, the plaintiff s claim of denial of access to the courts should be dismissed for failure to state a constitutional claim. -3- General Conditions of Confinement "[T]he Eighth Amendment may afford protection against conditions ofconfinement which constitute health threats but not against those which cause mere discomfort or inconvenience." Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846,849 (5 th Cir.l989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969 (1989)(citation omitted). "Inmates cannot expect the amenities, conveniences, and services of a good hotel." ld at 849 n.5 (citation omitted). Prison officials have certain duties under the Eighth Amendment, but these duties are only to provide prisoners with "humane conditions of confinement," including "adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care ...." Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 n.lO (5 th Cir. 1995) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,832 (1994)). The plaintiffhas stated only that the facility had "poor sanitation" and "inadequate bedding and underwear" for the inmates; he has alleged neither hann nor even discomfort from these conditions, however. Thus, taking into account the "totality of the circumstances," McCord V. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248 (5 th Crr. 1990), the instant claims do not rise to the level ofa constitutional violation. The plaintiffhas not identified any "basic human need" which he was denied for an unreasonable period oftime. See Woods, 51 F.3d at 581. Conclusion In sum, none ofthe plaintiff's allegations has merit, and the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A [mal judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue today. SO ORDERED, this, the 7?' day ofAugust, 2015. SENIOR JUDGE -4-
]]>
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.
