Garcia-Esparza v. City of Aztec et al, No. 1:2018cv00078 - Document 7 (D.N.M. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar DENYING 6 Plaintiff's Motion to use Law Library (am)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ANGEL GARCIA-ESPARZA, Plaintiff, v. No. 18-cv-0078 MV/SMV CITY OF AZTEC, SAN JUAN COUNTY, JOE GONZALES, TY ATENCIO, WILLIAM ANDERSON, FNU HARVEL, FNU WEBB, FNU DOUGEANT, DESIREE LNU, and TERESA LNU, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO USE “POTENTIAL” LAW LIBRARY THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to use Law Library [Doc. 6], docketed on February 6, 2018. Plaintiff appears to be a pre-trail detainee, held at the San Juan County Detention Center. [Doc. 1]. The entirety of his motion reads: “As there is a potential local law library[,] can the Court order San Juan County Detention Center and/or San Juan County to allow me to use it in this case while I continue pro se?” [Doc. 6] at 1. There is no freestanding right to visit a law library. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). There is no requirement that pretrial detainees have access to a law library if other available means of access to the courts exist. Love v. Summit Cty., 776 F.2d 908, 913–14 (10th Cir. 1985). To state a claim for denial of access to the courts, an inmate must show that he was “frustrated or impeded in his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim concerning his conviction or his conditions of confinement.” Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1191 (10th Cir. 2010). 1 Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to order that he be permitted to access a “potential local law library.” [Doc. 6] at 1. He does not allege that he has requested and been denied access to a law library. More importantly, he does not allege an actual injury resulting from denial of access to a law library. See [Doc. 6]. Plaintiff has failed to show that he is entitled to the relief requested. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to use Law Library [Doc. 4] is DENIED at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ STEPHAN M. VIDMAR United States Magistrate Judge 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.
