Cruz v. Hauck, Civ. A. No. SA70CA182.

• Citation: 345 F. Supp. 189
• Decision Date: 27 June 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. SA70CA182.
• Parties: Fred Arispe CRUZ et al. v. W. B. (Bill) HAUCK, Sheriff of Bexar County, and Jesse Dobbs, Chief Jailer.
• Court: United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas

345 F. Supp. 189

Fred Arispe CRUZ et al. v. W. B. (Bill) HAUCK, Sheriff of Bexar County, and Jesse Dobbs, Chief Jailer.

Civ. A. No. SA70CA182.

United States District Court, W. D. Texas, San Antonio Division.

June 27, 1972.

Frances T. Freeman Jalet, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs.

Ted Butler, Crim. Dist. Atty., Lucien B. Campbell, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Bexar County, Tex., for defendants.

ORDER

SPEARS, Chief Judge.

This Court's order of dismissal dated October 30, 1970 having been vacated and this cause having been remanded for further consideration in light of Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15, 92 S. Ct. 250, 30 L.Ed.2d 142 (1971), the issue presented for determination is whether the inmates in the Bexar County Jail are denied the use of their personal law books, and are thus deprived of access to the Courts, in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

The record herein reflects without dispute that inmates in the Bexar County Jail are free to use and retain any personal legal materials and supplies in the cell block area, except hard bound books, provided, sufficient floor and wall space is available for storage.¹ Since hard bound books are considered by the jail authorities to be potential weapons, they are not allowed in the cell block, but they may be used in restricted areas, such as isolated cells.² This Court, therefore, finds that the personal legal materials and supplies, including the hard bound books, are not totally banned from use by the inmates, and that the restrictions placed on their use by the Bexar County Jail are not unreasonable under the circumstances.

In their objections to the rules and regulations of the Bexar County Jail, plaintiffs contend for the first time that the county has an obligation under the Federal Constitution to provide complete law library facilities for the jail inmates. This contention, although belatedly made, is, nevertheless, without merit, because there is no such obligation imposed upon the county authorities. See Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632 (9th Cir.1961). Besides, every indigent defendant in the Bexar County Jail who desires the services of an attorney is supplied one without charge, and through such attorney he has access to the entire Bexar County Law Library. Any such attorney who represents a prisoner making complaints pursuant to Section 1983 can now be paid compensation, even though it may be somewhat limited.³ See Campbell v. Beto, 460 F. 2d 765 (5th Cir. 1972). In addition to several hundred practicing attorneys regularly appointed by the Courts to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases, there are other agencies in Bexar County, including the Bexar County Legal Aid Association, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which furnish attorneys to represent litigants in certain civil matters as well. It would appear, therefore, that the assistance presently available to prisoners in the Bexar County Jail is adequate to guarantee to them the kind of "access to the Courts" contemplated by Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct....