White v. Lewis, 1
| Citation | 167 Ariz. 76,804 P.2d 805 |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | CA-CV,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | Steven Rande WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel LEWIS, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. 88-615. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees, Sam Lewis and the Arizona Department of Corrections (collectively, the Department), on the complaint filed by Plaintiff-Appellant, Steven Rande White. White was an inmate at the State Prison in Florence, Arizona. White claimed that, as a result of the Department's indigence policy, he was denied his constitutional rights of access to the courts, access to his family and friends, and access to sanitary supplies. The trial court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment after White failed to appropriately respond to the Department's motion.
White objects to the Department's indigence policy which provides that an inmate is eligible for indigence status only if his prison account contains less than $12 for the thirty days preceding the inmate's application. According to White, an indigent inmate need not pay for the following supplies:
(1) soap, shampoo, deodorant, laundry soap, bath soap, toothpaste, toothbrush, comb, razors, and cleaning supplies;
(2) postage for three pieces of non-legal mail per week;
(3) unlimited photocopies of legal documents and copies of applicable rules of court;
(4) postage for all legal correspondence; and
(5) envelopes and paper.
However, a non-indigent inmate must pay for his own supplies.
In February 1988 White filed a verified complaint against the Department. White sought a declaratory judgment that the Department's indigence policy violated his constitutional rights and sought $123,000 in damages. With respect to his claim of denial of access to the courts, White alleged in his complaint that on January 12, 1988, he was advised that he would no longer be allowed to receive photocopies or envelopes for his legal correspondence. White claimed that, as a result, he was forced to settle a civil rights case against the Sheriff of Pinal County for a substantially lower amount than he otherwise would have. White claimed that he had been denied his fourteenth amendment right of due process because the indigence policy impeded his ability to prosecute that case. White also stated that he had several other cases pending in state and federal courts.
With respect to his claim of denial of access to his family and friends, White explained in his complaint that he could not afford to purchase the stamps, envelopes, and paper required to correspond with them. White claimed that he had been denied his first amendment right to communicate with his family and friends because the Department's policy allowed the Department to take money from his prison account to pay for his photocopying and his postage for legal documents, leaving him no money for correspondence with his family and friends.
White also complained of an alleged denial of sanitary supplies. He stated in his complaint that he was unable to purchase laundry and bath soap, a comb, toothpaste, or a razor. He claimed that the alleged denial violated his eighth amendment right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment because he was unable to keep himself clean. He also claimed that because he did not receive the laundry detergent and clothes washing services that inmates in other prisons received, he had been denied equal protection of the law guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment.
On June 28, 1988, the Department filed a motion for summary judgment. With respect to White's claim that he was forced to settle another lawsuit on January 12, 1988, because he was denied photocopies the Department attached the affidavit of Anita Reel, a correctional services officer. Reel explained that White became ineligible for indigence status on November 5, 1987, and that he had not reapplied for indigence status when he again became eligible. She attached and summarized the library log, which indicated that White had received hundreds of photocopies, regardless of his ability to pay, from October 1987 through January 1988. For example, from January 3 to January 19, 1988, White received 832 pages of photocopying. Reel explained that White's photocopying privileges were suspended for two days on January 12, 1988, because he was suspected of photocopying legal material for other inmates. Reel attached copies of incident reports alleging that White had photocopied other inmates' material and attached copies of some of the other inmates' material copied by White. The Department also argued that, even if White had received insufficient photocopying, he could have used carbon paper. Reel stated that, regardless of whether White was indigent, he was always given legal supplies including typing and pleading paper, carbon paper, pens, clips, a typewriter, and a typewriter ribbon. With respect to White's claim that he was denied access to family and friends, the Department argued that inmates have no constitutional right to free non-legal mail regardless of indigence. See Kaestel v. Lockhart, 746 F.2d 1323, 1325 (8th Cir.1984). The Department argued that White chose to spend his money on his litigation, not on his family and friends.
With respect to White's claim that he was denied sanitary supplies, the Department attached the affidavit of Gary Busk, another correctional services officer. Busk stated and attached indigent supply lists indicating that White received sanitary supplies on three occasions in October and November, 1987, regardless of whether he was indigent.
On June 23, 1988, Jerry Conn, an inmate legal assistant helping White, wrote a letter to the trial court. He explained to the court that he had prepared non-uniform interrogatories, a request for production of documents, and a request for admissions to be served on the Department in this case, but that White could not afford to copy or mail those documents. He requested the trial court to order the Department to assure them that White could properly litigate his case.
On July 18, 1988, White moved for a twenty-day extension of time to file his response to the Department's motion for summary judgment. He explained that on July 8 he had been placed in detention and that his legal assistant, Conn, had arranged to see him on July 11 but needed additional time to prepare his response. The trial court granted an extension until August 2, 1988, for the filing of White's response to the Department's motion for summary judgment.
On July 21, 1988, Conn again wrote to the trial court. He stated that the Department had placed White in detention in order to punish him for litigating this case and that the Department had attempted to sabotage this case by forcing White to switch to legal assistants who were unfamiliar with it.
On July 27, 1988, White also wrote to the trial court. He advised the court that he had now been released from detention, but that Conn was no longer authorized to help him. He urged that he needed Conn's help in order to respond to the Department's motion for summary judgment. In explaining why he had been placed in detention, he noted that copies of certain "incident reports" had been attached to the Department's statement of facts concerning its motion for summary judgment. One of these incident reports stated that another identified inmate had notified the Department that White had copied other inmates' legal work. White admitted that on July 7, 1988, he and Conn approached this inmate with their copy of that incident report. He stated that they merely wanted "to afford the inmate the opportunity to challenge the factualness of the report with respect to his alleged actions." He advised the court that on the next day he was placed in detention.
White also notified the trial court that on August 3, 1988, he had served upon the Department non-uniform interrogatories, a request for admissions, and a request for production of documents.
The trial court treated White's July 27, 1988, letter as a motion claiming interference with legal process, and requested that the Department respond to White's motion. Again, the court extended the time for the filing of White's response to the Department's motion for summary judgment.
In response to White's letter, the Department advised the trial court that White had been placed in detention based on the Department's conclusion that White and Conn were attempting to intimidate the inmate named in the incident report. The Department took the position that White was not entitled to the help of a particular legal assistant such as Conn. Based on the discovery documents White had just served on the Department, the Department concluded that "[i]t is obvious from this documentation that either plaintiff can litigate adequately for himself or he, at this point, has a new inmate assistant or he is still being aided by Mr. Conn."
On August 17, 1988, White again wrote to the trial court. White explained that he had filed those discovery documents before he was placed in detention. White requested that if the trial court determined that Conn need not assist him, then the trial court should appoint counsel for him.
On September 7, 1985, the trial court concluded that the Department's decision to provide White with a different legal assistant did not interfere with White's legal process:
The issue mainly comes down to whether Plaintiff has a right to the assistance of a particular person previously assigned to him as a writ writer in connection with the present proceedings. The Court does not find from the information that has been provided to the Court that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Compass Bank v. Amberwood Dev., Inc.
...must be left to counsel." Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. , 140 Ariz. 1, 2, 680 P.2d 137, 138 (1984); see also White v. Lewis, 167 Ariz. 76, 80, 804 P.2d 805, 809 (App. 1990) ("In light of the volume and complexity of modern litigation, we consider the cases requiring a trial court or an a......
-
Tilley v. Delci
... ... Robert Collins, Meyer L. Ziman, Attorney at Law By Meyer L. Ziman, Phoenix, Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants ... Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP By Kevin C. Nicholas, Michael G. Gluski, Phoenix, Meagher & Greer PLLP By Rob A. Justman, Scottsdale, Co-Counsel for ... Samaritan Health Sys., 195 Ariz. 502, 508 n. 7, ¶ 25, 990 P.2d 1061, 1067 n. 7 (App. 1999); and White v. Lewis, 167 Ariz. 76, 80, 804 P.2d 805, 809 (App.1990) ("In light of the volume and complexity of modern litigation, we consider the cases ... ...
-
State v. Melendez
... ... As authority for these propositions, appellee cites Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) and White v. Lewis, 167 Ariz. 76, 804 P.2d 805 (App.1990). Both these cases concern prisoners' access to the courts and do not address the issue at hand. He ... ...
-
Schwab v. Ames Const.
...204 Ariz. at 237, ¶ 21, 62 P.3d at 982; Allyn, 167 Ariz. at 196, 805 P.2d at 1017; see also White v. Lewis, 167 Ariz. 76, 91, 804 P.2d 805, 820 (App.1990) (Lankford, J., dissenting) ("[T]his court has already specifically held that, in view of Rule 56, [former] Rule IV does not allow a cour......