White v. Kautzky, C 02-0088-MWB.
| Decision Date | 03 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. C 02-0088-MWB.,C 02-0088-MWB. |
| Citation | 269 F.Supp.2d 1054 |
| Parties | Duane C. WHITE, on behalf of all similarly situated prisoners in Anamosa State Penitentiary, and all similarly situated prisoners under the supervision of the Iowa Department of Corrections, Plaintiff, v. Walter L. KAUTZKY, Director of the Iowa Department of Corrections, and John F. Ault, Warden of Anamosa State Penitentiary, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION........................................ 1056
A. Plaintiff's Claims................................. 1056
B. The Report and Recommendation...................... 1056
C. White's Objections And The Order To Supplement..... 1057
D. White's Supplemental Affidavit And Arguments....... 1058
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS........................................ 1058
A. Standard Of Review................................. 1058
B. Standards For Summary Judgment..................... 1059
C. The Class Action Claim............................. 1060
D. White's Individual Claim........................... 1060
1. Elements of an "access to the courts" claim..... 1060
a. "Opportunity to present claims".............. 1060
b. "Actual injury".............................. 1061
2. Analysis of White's claim....................... 1061
a. "Opportunity to present claims".............. 1061
b. "Actual injury".............................. 1062
III. CONCLUSION............................................. 1063
In this action, plaintiff Duane White asserts "access to the courts" claims on behalf of himself and members of a class of inmates at the Anamosa State Penitentiary (ASP). The class claim is based on the failure of the Iowa Department of Corrections to keep the law library at the ASP up to date and instead switching to a system relying on "contract attorneys" to provide legal assistance to inmates. White's individual claim is based on the alleged failure of the "contract attorneys" to assist him with research to determine whether or not he has a viable claim for post-conviction relief. As the potential basis for post-conviction relief, White contends that Iowa officials violated Iowa's version of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act in transferring him back and forth between Iowa and South Dakota before he pleaded guilty to charges in Iowa. White contends that the extradition violations may have deprived Iowa courts of jurisdiction to convict him. White contends that he needed advice or research as to the merits of his claim— that is, he could not risk simply filing for post-conviction relief—because, pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, filing a meritless post-conviction relief application would have allowed the prosecutor to reinstate additional charges bearing substantial additional penalties.
This matter comes before the court pursuant to the March 21, 2003, Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss. In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Zoss recommends that summary judgment be granted in the defendants' favor on White's individual and class claims of denial of access to the courts.
More specifically, Judge Zoss noted that White had not resisted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on his purported class action claims. Judge Zoss concluded that, because the motion was properly supported and unresisted as to the class action claims, the defendants' motion for summary judgment concerning those claims should be granted. As to White's individual claim of denial of access to the courts, Judge Zoss concluded that White has failed to show how the current legal assistance system at the ASP fails to meet the guarantees that an inmate have "`a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts.'" Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977)). Judge Zoss's conclusion in this regard was based on his finding that White admitted that the ASP contract attorney offered him a post-conviction relief application form, his attorney in the present action advised him to complete the post-conviction relief application and send it to the court immediately, and White was able to file for post-conviction relief in state court before the statute of limitations ran, but he made the decision to forego filing because of the possibility that several dismissed charges would be reinstated if he filed for post-conviction relief. Judge Zoss opined that White's "[m]ere dissatisfaction with the legal system by which assess [sic] to the courts is provided is not sufficient to establish a constitutional violation." Report and Recommendation at 11. Judge Zoss also concluded that White has alleged no facts suggesting an "actual injury"; rather, he had alleged only a "speculative" injury. This was so, Judge Zoss concluded, because prior to being paroled to the State of South Dakota on a detainer, White never attempted to file a post-conviction relief application before the statute of limitations ran.
White was granted an extension to and including May 2, 2003, to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation, and he filed his objections on that date. White made no objection to that part of Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation recommending summary judgment in the defendants' favor on his class action claim. However, White did object to Judge Zoss's conclusions that summary judgment should also be granted in the defendants' favor on his individual claim of denial of access to the courts. White objects to Judge Zoss's conclusions regarding his individual claim on the ground that there are material facts in dispute. Specifically, he contends that, at the very least, there are genuine issues of material fact that the Department of Corrections has failed to provide any way for him to research and determine if he should file a post-conviction relief application, where the consequence of filing such an application, pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, might be reinstatement of charges carrying the potential of an additional sentence of one hundred and twenty-five years. He contends that the legal assistance system at the ASP prevented him from filing a post-conviction relief application, because he needed to be very sure, in light of the potential consequences of filing such an application, that the application had merit.
In an order dated May 9, 2003, the court found that the record was inadequate on the issue of whether or not White has suffered an "actual injury," an essential element of his "access to the courts" claim, to dispose of either the objections to the Report and Recommendation or the underlying summary judgment motion by the defendants. Therefore, the court directed White to supplement the record with any evidence and argument that he believes generates a genuine issue of material fact that he has suffered "actual injury" in support of his "access to the courts" claim. The court likewise stated that defendants would thereafter have the opportunity to file any supplemental reply.
On June 16, 2003, after an extension of time to do so, White's counsel submitted a supplemental brief concerning White's alleged "actual injury," and White filed an affidavit in support of his contentions on June 19, 2003.1 The defendants, however, filed no timely reply. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation, and White's Objections are now fully submitted for the court's consideration.
In his Supplementary Memorandum, White attempts to amplify his contentions in support of his individual "access to the courts" claim. He asserts that the State has created a liberty interest in the requirements for extradition, and that he has a nonfrivolous claim that the requirements of the extradition statute were repeatedly violated. In his supplemental affidavit, White avers that he was transferred from Iowa to South Dakota without ever being presented with any paperwork or a governor's warrant, without an appearance before any Iowa judge, without access to counsel, without the opportunity to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and without signing a waiver of extradition proceedings. Further, he contends that the legal assistance system at the ASP was inadequate to allow him to research the complex issue of the viability of his claim concerning violations of the extradition statute. More specifically, White contends that "[t]he injury here is failure to allow [him] to research this issue and have an opportunity to present this issue to the court." Supplementary Memorandum at 2. Although White argues that Judge Zoss made much of the fact that White had been advised by counsel in the present matter to file his post-conviction relief application, that advice was not particularly wise in light of the consequences of filing an unsuccessful action for post-conviction relief.
The standard of review to be applied by the district court to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge is established by statute:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Eighth Circuit Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bills v. Cactus Family Farms, LLC
...Courts may grant summary judgment as to unresisted claims if the motion is properly supported. See, e.g., White v. Kautzky , 269 F. Supp. 2d 1054, at 1057, 1060 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (affirming magistrate judge's grant of summary judgment "because the motion was properly supported and unresisted......
-
White v. Kautzky, C 02-0088-MWB.
...recommendation In a published ruling filed July 3, 2003, upon de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), see White v. Kautzky, 269 F.Supp.2d 1054 (N.D.Iowa 2003), the undersigned accepted in part and rejected in part the March 21, 2003, Report and Recommendation (docket no. 26). The ......
-
Brandt v. City of Cedar Falls
...30, at 41). Given plaintiff's lack of resistance, the Court will only briefly analyze this claim. See, e.g., White v. Kautzky, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1054, at 1057, 1060 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (noting that courts may grant summary judgment as to unresisted claims if the motion is properly supported). Fi......
-
Ohlson-Townsend v. Wolf
...1). Courts may grant summary judgment as to unresisted claims if the motion is properly supported. See, e.g., White v. Kautzky, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1054, at 1057, 1060 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (affirming a magistrate judge's grant of summary judgment "because the motion was properly supported and unres......
-
White v. Kautzky.
...District Court LAW LIBRARY LEGAL ASSISTANCE White v. Kautzky, 269 F.Supp.2d 1054 (N.D.Iowa 2003). A state inmate brought an action against a director of a state corrections department and the warden of a state penitentiary, alleging that his and other inmates' access to courts rights were v......