Garcia v. Hoover

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 9 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RICHARD R. GARCIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-2375
(D.C. No. CIV-96-449-MV)
DON HOOVER, of the Corrections (D. N.M.)
Department,
Defendant,
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF
NEW MEXICO,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and TACHA , Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff-appellant Richard R. Garcia appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing with prejudice his civil rights complaint. The district court construed
his complaint, filed as a habeas petition, as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for
violation of his civil rights. It adopted the recommendation of the magistrate
judge assigned to the case and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. We affirm
the order of dismissal.
Appellant is a New Mexico prisoner currently housed in the California
prison system under the provisions of the Interstate Corrections Compact. He
brought this complaint alleging denial of access to the courts. He asserted that he
needed physical access to New Mexico legal materials to pursue various
proceedings in the New Mexico state and federal courts.
The district court initially found that appellant had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. It suspended proceedings to allow appellant to pursue a
grievance through the prison grievance system, which he did. As the result of his
grievance, the prison authorities reiterated their policy of allowing appellant to
obtain photocopies of identifiable New Mexico legal materials upon request from
-2-
the head librarian at the New Mexico Penitentiary. They further granted his
request for paralegal assistance with general research and with drafting of
pleadings. Appellant was instructed that he could receive paralegal assistance
with New Mexico law issues by requesting such assistance through the head
librarian. The authorities denied appellant’s request for retransfer to a New
Mexico prison, however.
Appellant argued thereafter that the relief he had obtained through the
grievance process was insufficient to vindicate his constitutional right of access
to the New Mexico courts. The magistrate judge rejected this argument and
recommended that appellant’s complaint be dismissed. He found that New
Mexico had provided appellant with sufficient access to New Mexico legal
resources. He further found that appellant had failed to allege a relevant, actual
injury from the alleged denial of access to the courts.
On appeal, appellant continues to argue that he requires physical access to a
library containing New Mexico materials. He claims that the New Mexico
Penitentiary will only send him photocopies of cases and other materials if he
provides an exact citation to the material he wants copied. Without physical
access to a law library, he says, it is not possible for him to develop the exact
citations which the prison librarian requires.
-3-
Prisoners maintain a fundamental constitutional right of meaningful access
to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817, 821-22 (1977). This right is
not diminished when a prisoner is transferred out of state. The sending state
bears the burden of providing the required state legal materials. See Clayton v.
Tansy , 26 F.3d 980, 982 (10th Cir. 1993).
In order for appellant to prove a violation of the constitutional right of
access to the courts, he must show: (1) the failure of prison officials to assist him
“in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing [him] with
[an] adequate law librar[y] or adequate assistance from persons trained in the
law;” and (2) some quantum of prejudice or detriment caused by the challenged
conduct of state officials resulting in the interruption and/or delay of his pending
or contemplated litigation. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 346, 351 (1996).
As we agree with the district court that appellant has failed to establish the first
of these two elements, we need not consider whether he has made an adequate
showing of prejudice.
Providing prisoners with direct, physical access to a law library is merely
one constitutionally-acceptable method of assuring their right of meaningful
access to the courts. See id. , 518 U.S. at 351. Prison authorities may also fulfill
this responsibility by providing inmates with “adequate assistance from persons
trained in the law.” Bounds , 430 U.S. at 828. Legal assistance is constitutionally
-4-
sufficient when provided by nonattorneys trained in the law such as inmate law
clerks, paralegals, or law students. See Carper v. DeLand , 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th
Cir. 1995).
As the result of appellant’s administrative grievance, he has been granted
the opportunity to receive assistance from a paralegal with research and the
preparation of pleadings. He fails to show that this assistance has been withheld
or is insufficient in any way. 1
Given the availability of this assistance, he has
failed to show that he is being denied his constitutional right of access to the
courts.
Appellant also argues that he was denied a fair hearing on his claim in the
district court because the State of New Mexico mistakenly provided the court with
documents and records pertaining to a different Richard Garcia. Appellant fails
to explain how this mistake could have had any effect on the court’s ultimate
decision pertaining to the legal issues in this case. Our review of the record and
the law convinces us that even disregarding these materials, the district court
acted properly in dismissing appellant’s complaint.
1
Appellant complains that the prison librarian did not answer a letter which
he wrote to her on June 13, 1997. In that letter, he asked her how he was
“suppose go [sic] about Inquiring for some Law Cases. When I don’t have access
to Law Books to Give You specific citations.” R. doc. 31, ex. B. Appellant had
already received an answer to that question: he was to request paralegal
assistance with his legal research.
-5-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
James E. Barrett
Senior Circuit Judge
-6-