SHELDON GLASSHOFER, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM C. SENNETT, ATTY. GEN. OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Prison regulations prohibiting inmates from maintaining a private law library in their cells do not state a claim under the Civil Rights Act if access to the courts is not frustrated.
Appellant, a prisoner, complained that prison officials were hampering him from compiling his own individual law library. He did not complain of denia…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from the dismissal, without hearing, of appellant’s civil rights complaint. The district court fairly capsulized appellant’s position: “that the [prison] institution’s officials are hampering him from compiling his own individual law library.” Appellant has not complained that he has been denied access to the prison library. Moreover, the district court found that he “has not been denied access to this court since we recently considered and denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus * * * wherein he presented eight grounds for relief.”
In Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F. 2d 1, 6-7 (3 Cir.1970), we found that regulations prohibiting a prisoner from having a law library in his cell did not state a claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U. S.C. § 1983:
Appellant also attacks prison rules which prohibit an inmate from main taining a prívate law library in his cell. * * *
Access to the courts is guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But prison regulations which reasonably limit the times, places and manner in which inmates may engage in legal research and preparation of legal papers do not transgress this constitutional protection so long as the regulations do not frustrate this access. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1968).
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1969)
- Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3d Cir. 1970)