Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Durham

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 17, 2018

AKIEL TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
LA TOYA DURHAM, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On April 11, 2018, Akiel Taylor, a pro-se prisoner at the King County Jail, submitted a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against defendants La Toya Durham, Jail Administrative Services Specialist; C/O Allen, Captain Pierson, and Sergeant Sellers. Dkt. 1, 5. The Court declined to serve the complaint because it was deficient and granted Mr. Taylor leave to file an amended complaint by May 14, 2018. Dkt. 11. The Court advised Mr. Taylor that if he did not file an amended complaint or cure its deficiencies by that date, the Court would recommend the case be dismissed with prejudice. Because Mr. Taylor has not responded, the Court recommends the case be dismissed with prejudice.

         Mr. Taylor's complaint alleges defendant Durham denied him access to legal materials including a “workstation.” Dkt. 5 at 3. He further alleges

Captain Pierson controls the movement of sergent Sellers and C/O Allen and others here at the King County Jail July 1 2016 I had to get a continuance by the judge and won't to let me prepare and because I couldn't file the right motion and have my discovery this is why we have this problem.

Id. at 3. As relief, Mr. Taylor seeks “compensatory and punitive damages and a different judge.” Id. at 4.

         DISCUSSION

         To obtain relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. Taylor must establish (1) his federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated, and (2) that the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state or federal law. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). Mr. Taylor must thus identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). He must also allege facts showing how each individually named defendant caused, or personally participated in causing, the harm alleged in the complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981).

         A. Library Access Claim

         There is no freestanding constitutional right to law library access for prisoners; law library access serves as one means of ensuring the constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). “[T]he Constitution does not guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to a law library. Prison officials of necessity must regulate the time, manner, and place in which library facilities are used.” Linquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985). A prisoner claiming his right of access to the courts has been violated due to blocked access to the law library or legal materials must show that: 1) access was so limited as to be unreasonable, and 2) the inadequate access caused actual injury. Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994).

         A prisoner cannot make conclusory declarations of injury, but instead must demonstrate that a non-frivolous legal claim has been frustrated or impeded. To prevail, however, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial. An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348.

[T]he inmate . . . must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. He might show, for example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have known. Or that he suffered arguably actionable harm that he wished to bring before the courts, but was so stymied by inadequacies of the law library that he was unable even to file a complaint.

Id. at 351. Here, the complaint hints at but fails to demonstrate Mr. Taylor's access to legal materials was unreasonably limited or that he has been actually prejudiced by the restrictions.

         Accordingly, the claim should be dismissed.

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.