Parker v. State of Mississippi

No. 98-60664
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60664
Conference Calendar
CLYDE W. PARKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ET AL.,
Defendants,
JOE PRICE, Sheriff; BRUCE CARVER,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:96-CV-468-BrR
--------------------
April 11, 2000
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Clyde W. Parker appeals the dismissal of his complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Joe Price, and Captain Bruce
Carver. Parker alleged in his complaint that his constitutional
rights were violated when he was been denied access to the prison
law library.
This court reviews the district court’s order granting
summary judgment de novo. Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-60664
-2-
Ass’n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). Summary
judgment is appropriate only if “‘there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.’” Ladue v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.,
920 F.2d 272, 273 (5th Cir. 1991)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
As a general matter, lack of access to legal materials may
constitute an unconstitutional infringement on a prisoner’s right
of access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828
(1977); McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 230 (5th Cir. 1998).
However, Bounds “did not create an abstract, freestanding right
to a law library or legal assistance.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 351 (1996). Instead, an inmate alleging denial of access to
the courts must demonstrate a relevant, actual injury stemming
from the defendants’ unconstitutional conduct. See id.
In his complaint, Parker alleged that he needed to visit the
library in order to research “Speedy Trial.” However, Parker did
not allege or present evidence that his attorney had ceased to
represent him. This court has held a criminal defendant’s right
of access to the courts is not infringed if he is represented by
counsel. See Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1014 (5th Cir. 1981)
(holding that a prisoner’s civil rights complaint failed to state
a claim for denial of access to the courts when he was
represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings).
Accordingly, Parker cannot establish an injury based on this
claim.
Parker also complained that he wanted information on the
medical responsibilities of the Detention Center. However, “the
No. 98-60664
-3-
Constitution does not require that prisoners . . . be able to
conduct generalized research, but only that they be able to
present their grievances to the courts . . . .” Lewis, 518 U.S.
at 360. In his complaint, Parker stated that he had filed a
claim in the federal courts regarding his medical claims.
Accordingly, Parker cannot show that he was unable to present his
grievance to the courts.
As Parker cannot demonstrate that he has suffered an injury
because of his alleged inability to access the prison law
library, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
defendants is AFFIRMED.