We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
THE LIBRARY IS CLOSED: DISAGREEMENT OVER A PRISONER'S RIGHT TO ACCESS THE COURTS.
- Authors
Linden, Alexander
- Abstract
As a result of their confinement, prisoners are vulnerable to physical violence, deficient health care, inadequate nutrition, and a whole host of abuses. Due to the often-impenetrable walls of a prison, these abuses remain out of public sight. Because prisoners are frequently stripped of their right to vote, they are unable to find remedy through the political processes. Instead, one of the most powerful tools a prisoner can wield to bring attention to the abuses within prison walls and improve the conditions of their confinement is litigation. Prisoners have a constitutional right to access the courts. To render that right meaningful, the Supreme Court held in Bounds v. Smith that prisons have an affirmative obligation to provide legal assistance to prisoners bringing habeas corpus or civil rights actions, and one such way of doing so is to establish law libraries. Often without the help of a lawyer, prisoners must rely on the law libraries to effectively build a case, navigate discovery and motion practice, and potentially try the case. Unfortunately, the Courts of Appeals are split on the temporal scope of a prison's obligation to provide assistance. The Ninth Circuit held that obligation ends after a civil rights complaint is filed, depriving prisoners of the means to prepare for trial, and in effect, silenced prisoners. The Third and Seventh Circuits held the obligation persists through trial. Restricting prisons' obligation to provide legal assistance to prisoners to the pleading stage is just another item among the long list of barriers to prison litigation. This Note argues the Ninth Circuit's decision erroneously relied on Lewis v. Casey, a case the Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to hear and that provides no constitutional authority on the scope of a prisoner's right to access the courts. Anticipating the issue coming before the federal appellate courts that have yet to rule on the question, this Note provides an answer that not only finds constitutional and legal support, but fulfills the demands of Bounds: the right to access the courts must be meaningful.
- Subjects
PRISONERS; LAW libraries; CIVIL rights; LEGAL services; SUFFRAGE
- Publication
Boston University Law Review, 2024, Vol 104, Issue 3, p989
- ISSN
0006-8047
- Publication type
Article