Duane Fox v. NC Prison Legal Services ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6793
DUANE L. FOX, a/k/a Jennifer Ann Jasmaine,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA PRISON LEGAL SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:18-cv-00314-FDW)
Submitted: October 31, 2018 Decided: December 4, 2018
Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Duane Leroy Fox, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Duane Leroy Fox appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). In his complaint, Fox
alleged that North Carolina Prison Legal Services (“NCPLS”) denied him meaningful
access to the courts by failing to conduct legal research on his behalf. For the reasons
that follow, we vacate the court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
“The standards for reviewing a dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) are the same as
those for reviewing a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
Thomas v. Salvation Army S. Territory, 841 F.3d 632, 637 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we review de novo a dismissal under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), accepting as true all well-pleaded facts. Id. “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged
deprivation was committed under color of state law.” Thomas, 841 F.3d at 637 (internal
quotation marks omitted). “[T]he fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts
requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful
legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance
from persons trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). To state a
violation of this right, an inmate must assert “that the alleged shortcomings in the library
2
or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim,” Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996), relating to his criminal judgment or to the conditions of his
confinement, id. at 354-55.
Fox alleged that North Carolina replaced the law library at his correctional
institution with NCPLS but that NCPLS refused to look up cases cited by the defendants
named in one of Fox’s other civil actions, 1 thus impairing his ability to formulate
adequate responses to the defendants’ filings. The district court dismissed the complaint
because Fox had capably filed other complaints while incarcerated. However, “a
prisoner’s simple ability to file a complaint is not dispositive” of an access-to-courts
claim. Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2006). The court also dismissed
the action because NCPLS was not required to accept representation in every prisoner
case. Fox, however, did not allege that NCPLS declined to represent him or to prosecute
his civil action; rather, Fox claimed that NCPLS refused to carry out the type of legal
research that he would have been able to conduct had he had access to a law library.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
adequately justify its dismissal of Fox’s complaint. We note that the court did not
consider whether NCPLS was a state actor for purposes of § 1983 liability, see Goldstein
v. Chestnut Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., 218 F.3d 337, 340–49 (4th Cir. 2000), whether Fox
adequately identified a nonfrivolous underlying claim, see Christopher v. Harbury, 536
1
Fox has filed several civil complaints concerning the conditions of his
confinement, but he did not specifically identify which complaint was prejudiced by
NCPLS’s alleged shortcomings.
3
U.S. 403, 413–16 (2002), or whether the complaint failed for any other reason. At this
juncture, we decline to reach these questions, instead leaving them for the district court to
address in the first instance.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further
proceedings. We deny Fox’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4