About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

95 Law Libr. J. 491 (2003)
Does Lewis v. Casey Spell the End to Court-Ordered Improvement of Prison Law Libraries

handle is hein.journals/llj95 and id is 493 raw text is: Does Lewis v. Casey Spell the End to Court-Ordered Improvement of Prison Law Libraries?* Joesph L. Gerken** The Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Casey raises the bar for advocates seeking court-ordered improvements in prison law libraries. Whether it dooms all such efforts to failure may well depend on the willingness of trial courts to take into account the realities of prisoners'pro se litigation. 1 In Lewis v. Casey, the Supreme Court held that prisoners do not have an abstract, freestanding right to a law library.' Hence, an inmate cannot support a federal claim simply by showing that a prison law library is subpar in some the- oretical sense.2 Rather, the inmate must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings of the law library . . . hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.3 2 As some commentators have noted, this actual injury requirement seems to create a paradox in that the ability to litigate a denial of access claim is evi- dence that the plaintiff has no denial of access claim!4 3 Does Lewis v. Casey spell the end of prisoners' efforts to obtain court- ordered improvements to their law libraries? Certainly the actual injury require- ment makes it significantly harder for potential plaintiffs to sustain any challenge to the adequacy of law libraries. However, it may be possible to show actual injury, at least in the most egregious cases of denial of law library services. A key factor will be courts' willingness to take into account the realities of prison litigation. An underlying premise of the following discussion is that there is a significant rela- tionship between the outcome of prisoners' access to court cases and the extent to which the deciding court acknowledges those realities. Decisions granting relief to plaintiffs almost invariably are supported by an analysis of the practical realities of prison litigation. Contrarily, decisions denying relief tend to disregard those realities. 4 In this regard, the Lewis decision represent, a critical departure in the ana- lytical approach to access to court cases. Prior Supreme Court decisions, notably * © Joseph L. Gerken, 2003. ** Senior Assistant Librarian, Charles B. Sears Law Library, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. The author wishes to acknowledge the courtesy and professionalism of the law librarians of the New York State Department of Correctional Services whom he has encountered in his labors. 1. 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 2. Id. 3. Id. 4. Walters v. Edgar, 163 F.3d 430, 436 (7th Cir. 1998).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most