Casey v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 27 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-17169,93-17169
• Citation: 43 F.3d 1261
• Parties: Fletcher CASEY, Jr., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Samuel A. LEWIS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1261

43 F.3d 1261

Fletcher CASEY, Jr., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Samuel A. LEWIS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 93-17169.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 16, 1994.

Submission Deferred Nov. 17, 1994.

Resubmitted Nov. 23, 1994.

Decided Dec. 27, 1994.

Daniel P. Struck, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, Phoenix, AZ, for defendants-appellants.

Elizabeth Alexander, ACLU Nat. Prison Project, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Before: LAY, ^* PREGERSON, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

Defendants-Appellants Samuel A. Lewis, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., appeal the district court's order finding that Plaintiffs-Appellees Fletcher Casey Jr., et al., prisoners incarcerated in facilities of the Arizona Department of Corrections, were unconstitutionally denied meaningful access to the courts. Defendants also appeal the district court's issuance of a permanent injunction requiring the Arizona Department of Corrections to implement a plan to ensure prisoners meaningful access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1291 and 1292(a)(1). We AFFIRM in part, and VACATE and REMAND in part. ¹

BACKGROUND

The Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADOC") operates nine prison facilities located within the State of Arizona. The total male inmate population as of January 22, 1992 was 14,424 and the total female inmate population was 922. On January 12, 1990, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, twenty-two prisoners filed this class action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, claiming, inter alia, ² that prison officials unconstitutionally denied them meaningful access to the courts. The certified class consists of all adult persons who are now, or who will be, in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections. Defendants are agents, officials, or employees of ADOC.

On November 16, 1992, following a three-month bench trial, U.S. District Judge C.A. Muecke ruled that ADOC's law libraries and legal assistance programs were inadequate, unconstitutionally denying prisoners meaningful access to the courts. Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.Supp. 1553 (D.Ariz.1992). Specifically, Judge Muecke found the following constitutionally deficient: the contents of the library; the access to the libraries; the legal assistance for prisoners who are illiterate or who do not speak English; library staffing; the indigency standard for receiving legal supplies; the photocopying policy that allowed the confidentiality of legal documents to be breached; and the restrictions on inmates' telephone calls to their attorneys. Id.

The district court appointed Dan Pachoda as Special Master and Expert, and Janet Bliss as Assistant Special Master to work with the parties to develop the proper injunctive relief. On October 13, 1993, the district court issued a permanent injunction, requiring

ADOC to implement the legal access plan devised by Pachoda. ADOC now appeals, challenging the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the scope of injunctive relief ordered, and the requirement that ADOC pay the fees of the Special Master without having been given an opportunity to object.

ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

We review the district court's legal conclusions de novo. U.S. v. Yacoubian, 24 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir.1994). We defer to the district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 571-73, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1510-11, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). We review the scope of injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion or application of erroneous legal principles. Dexter v. Kirschner, 984 F.2d 979, 982 (9th Cir.1992).

B. District Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 823, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1495, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), the Supreme Court firmly established that prisoners have a fundamental right of meaningful access to the courts. The importance of this right cannot be overstated. It is the right upon which all other rights depend. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2986, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), the Court explained that this right "is founded in the Due Process Clause and assures that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning violations of fundamental constitutional rights." See also Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F.Supp. 105, 110 (N.D.Cal.1970) (" 'Access to the courts' ... encompasses all the means a defendant ... might require to get a fair hearing from the judiciary on all charges brought against him or grievances alleged by him."), aff'd sub nom. Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct. 250, 30 L.Ed.2d 142 (1971) (per curiam).

To discharge the duty of assuring prisoners meaningful access to the courts, the Court held that States "must assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Bounds 430 U.S. at 828, 97 S.Ct. at 1498. In determining the constitutional adequacy of a legal access program, the Court directed district courts to evaluate the program "as a whole," emphasizing that "meaningful access to the courts is the touchstone." Id. at 832, 823, 97 S.Ct. at 1500, 1495.

We hold that the district court correctly applied case law in concluding that ADOC's legal access program unconstitutionally denied inmates meaningful access to the courts. In Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1352 (9th Cir.1981), we held that it is the State's burden to provide meaningful access and to demonstrate that its chosen method is adequate. ADOC has not met this burden.

1. Contents of the Law Libraries

Undisputed facts support the district court's finding that the contents of ADOC's law libraries are inadequate. In several libraries, volumes of various reporters, as well as the pocket parts to various secondary sources are missing. Updated inventories are unquestionably an essential element of an adequate library system. See Lindquist v. Idaho State Board of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851 (9th Cir.1985) (affirming district court's order that state must furnish essential and up-to-date law books).

Several libraries also do not contain self-help manuals to instruct inmates on how to use the law books. The complexities of legal research at the very least require these aids to enable inmates to use the books effectively. As the Court in Bounds mandated, access must be "adequate, effective, and meaningful." 430 U.S. at 822, 97 S.Ct. at 1495 (emphasis added).

2. Physical Access

We recognized in Lindquist that the Constitution does not guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to a law library, and that "[p]rison officials of necessity must regulate the time, manner, and place in which library Following the rule established in Toussaint, we hold that unless ADOC can demonstrate actual security risks, an inmate should be allowed access to the law library. The district court correctly concluded that ADOC may not routinely prohibit lockdown inmates from physically using the law library. ³ Access to the law library's books is crucial because as we explained in Toussaint,

                facilities are used."  776 F.2d at 858.   Accordingly, in Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1109 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069, 107 S.Ct. 2462, 95 L.Ed.2d 871 (1987), we held that prisons may deny inmates physical access to the law library if such access would threaten institutional security.  We affirmed the district court's order that required prison officials to allow segregated prisoners access to a law library "as reasonably necessary, absent documented security reasons."  Id. at 1108-09
                

legal research often requires browsing through various materials in search of inspiration; tentative theories may have to be abandoned in the course of research in the face of unfamiliar adverse precedent. New theories may occur as a result of a chance discovery of an obscure or forgotten case.

801 F.2d at 1110 (quoting Williams v. Leeke, 584 F.2d 1336, 1339 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 911, 99 S.Ct. 2825, 61 L.Ed.2d 276 (1979)).

3. Legal Assistance

For those inmates deemed security risks and denied access to the library, Bounds requires the State to provide legal assistance. 430 U.S. at 828, 97 S.Ct. at 1498. The district court did not err in concluding that the legal assistance provided by ADOC was constitutionally deficient. In some facilities, officials do not require inmate applicants to possess any qualifications aside from a literacy in English. In others, the tests developed to assess the applicants' qualifications do not test for skills in legal research and writing, nor do the officials administer the tests to all of the applicants. Furthermore, in most facilities, the officials do not provide any type of training for the legal assistants. This deficiency directly contravenes the rule set forth in Bounds that legal assistance must be provided by persons "trained in the law." Id. See also Gluth v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, 1508 (9th Cir.1991) ("the appearance of minimal capacity to assist other inmates alone plainly does not suffice").

Sufficient numbers of trained legal assistants also must be provided to prisoners who are functionally illiterate or whose primary language is not English. It goes without saying that "a book and a library are of no use, in and of themselves, to a prisoner who cannot read." Lindquist, 776 F.2d at 855-56. ADOC's failure to provide bilingual legal assistants or law clerks in many of the facilities denies non-English-speaking inmates meaningful access. The reliance upon fellow prisoners who are not trained in the law simply does not...