Access to the Courts

The Right of Access to the Courts

Prisoners have the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Prison officials must make an effort to guarantee this right by providing prisoners with “adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.”1 However, the right of access to the courts is not absolute, and prison officials may limit the extent to which they provide inmates with the tools necessary to pursue a lawsuit.

What must prison officials do to provide inmates access to the courts?

There are two basic ways in which prison officials can guarantee inmates access to the courts: they can provide inmates with access to an adequate law library and/or they can provide them with adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Thus, if an inmate has an attorney for his criminal or civil case, the institution need not allow him to visit the law library.

In the case of indigent inmates, prison officials also must provide them “with paper and pen to draft legal documents, with notary services to authenticate them, and with stamps to mail them.”2

In what ways can prison officials limit inmates’ access to the courts?

Prison officials do not have to allow inmates to pursue all types of claims.
In Lewis v. Casey (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that inmates’ right to access to the courts does not extend to all types of claims, but rather only to habeas corpus petitions, civil rights actions, and claims alleging constitutional violations.3 Thus, prison officials do not have to allow prisoners to go to the law library or to consult with someone trained in the law if he wants to pursue a claim of medical malpractice, for example.

Security concerns can justify limiting inmates’ access to the law library.
If there are “legitimate security considerations,” prison officials may restrict access to the law library.4 For example, prison officials can limit the number of inmates that may be present in the law library at one time. Accordingly, they can limit the amount of time that individual inmates may spend in the library. However, prisoners must have enough time in the law library in order for their research to be meaningful. Prisoners must be able to “research the law and determine what facts may be necessary to state a cause of action.”5 “At the least, severe restrictions on library time can be justified only if trained research assistants are made available to guide the prisoner's research efforts.”6

Can prison officials allow inmates only indirect access to law libraries?
Sometimes prisons set up law library systems where inmates where inmates must request books and other legal documents in order to conduct legal research. Inmates do not get physically to go to the law library, but rather have materials brought to them in their cells. There is no coherent case law dictating the legality of such systems of indirect access. Some courts have ruled it unconstitutional to require prisoners to give the exact names of cases they want to read. However, many courts have held such exact cite systems to be permissible when they are supplemented by trained research assistants or by adequate reference materials in a basic library.7

What can an inmate do if he feels his institution is not guaranteeing him meaningful access to the courts?

Inmates may bring a lawsuit against their institution if they think their institution is not providing them with the tools necessary to have meaningful access to the courts. However, in order to be successful in court, the prisoner must prove that he has suffered an “actual injury” as a result of restricted access to the courts. That is, the prisoner must prove that a non-frivolous legal claim was frustrated because he did not have access either to an adequate law library or to legal counsel.8 Here, the basis standard is that inmates must be provided meaningful access to the courts. Systems of indirect law library access must not hinder inmates’ efforts to conduct meaningful legal research.

1. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S. Ct. 1491, 1498 (1977). In: JLM, p. 35.
2. Ebd.
3. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996). In: JLM, p. 37ff.
4. Shango v. Jurich, 965 F.2d 289, 292. In: JLM, p. 42.
5. Hossman v. Spradlin, 812 F.2d 1019, 1021 (7th Cir. 1987).
6. Williams v. Leeke, 584 F.2d 1336 (4th Cir. 1978).
7. See Griffin v. Coughlin, 743 F. Supp. 1006.
8. Lewis v. Casey. In: JLM, p. 37.