×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Sending State Responsible for Legal Materials
The ninth circuit has agreed with other circuits, holding that when a state prisoner is transferred to another state, the sender is responsible for ensuring the prisoners' access to the courts. James Boyd is a Kansas state prisoner who was transferred to the Washington State Penitentiary. He filed suit against Washington prison officials claiming that the WSP law library had insufficient legal materials on Kansas state law. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous and the ninth circuit affirmed.
The only question on appeal was whether Kansas (the sending state) or Washington (the receiving state) was responsible for providing Boyd with the legal materials he needed. This is an issue of first impression in the ninth circuit. The tenth and first circuits have previously held that the "sending state authorities maintain the responsibility of providing required state legal materials for their prisoners incarcerated in sister state facilities." Clayton v. Tansy, 26 F.3d 980, 982 (10th Cir. 1993), [PLN. Vol. 5, No. 11]; Rich v. Zitnay, 644 F.2d 41, 43 (1st Cir. 1981).
"We agree with the Tenth Circuit, and hold that sending state authorities maintain responsibility for providing state legal materials to their prisoners incarcerated in out of state facilities." Because Kansas state prison officials could not be served by a district court in Washington, the district court properly dismissed the suit as frivolous. See: Boyd v. Wood, 52 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 1995). Readers will note that federal courts in Washington, in an unpublished ruling, Larue v. Gardner, required Washington DOC officials to provide their out of state prisoners with a micro fiche viewer and Washington state law on microfiche to ensure their right of access to the courts.
The only question on appeal was whether Kansas (the sending state) or Washington (the receiving state) was responsible for providing Boyd with the legal materials he needed. This is an issue of first impression in the ninth circuit. The tenth and first circuits have previously held that the "sending state authorities maintain the responsibility of providing required state legal materials for their prisoners incarcerated in sister state facilities." Clayton v. Tansy, 26 F.3d 980, 982 (10th Cir. 1993), [PLN. Vol. 5, No. 11]; Rich v. Zitnay, 644 F.2d 41, 43 (1st Cir. 1981).
"We agree with the Tenth Circuit, and hold that sending state authorities maintain responsibility for providing state legal materials to their prisoners incarcerated in out of state facilities." Because Kansas state prison officials could not be served by a district court in Washington, the district court properly dismissed the suit as frivolous. See: Boyd v. Wood, 52 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 1995). Readers will note that federal courts in Washington, in an unpublished ruling, Larue v. Gardner, required Washington DOC officials to provide their out of state prisoners with a micro fiche viewer and Washington state law on microfiche to ensure their right of access to the courts.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Boyd v. Wood
| Year | 1995 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 52 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 1995) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Boyd v. Wood, 52 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 04/21/1995)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 94-35147
[4] filed: April 21, 1995.
[5] JAMES ADOLPHIS BOYD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
TANA WOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. D.C. No. CV-93-00430-JLQ. Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding.
[7] James Adolphis Boyd, Pro per, Walla Walla, Washington, for the plaintiff-appellant.
[8] No appearance for the defendant-appellee.
[9] Before: Eugene A. Wright, Cecil F. Poole, and Charles Wiggins, Circuit Judges.
[10] Opinion*fn*
[11] Per Curiam:
[12] James Adolphis Boyd, a Kansas state prisoner housed at the Washington State Penitentiary pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC), appeals pro se the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Washington state prison authorities have denied him meaningful access to the courts because the law library at the Washington State Penitentiary contained inadequate Kansas state law materials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's determination that a claim is frivolous under § 1915(d), Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992), and we affirm.
[13] Here, we need only determine whether the Washington officials had the responsibility to assure Boyd reasonable access to the Kansas legal materials he needed for his allegedly pending litigation in the Kansas courts. This presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit. The Tenth Circuit has held that sending state authorities maintain the responsibility of providing required state legal materials for their prisoners incarcerated in sister state facilities. Clayton v. Tansy, 26 F.3d 980, 982 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Rich v. Zitnay, 644 F.2d 41, 43 (1st Cir. 1981) (state authorities housing state prisoner in federal prison in sister state remained responsible for providing prisoner with access to state legal materials). We agree with the Tenth Circuit, and hold that sending state authorities maintain responsibility for providing state legal materials to their prisoners incarcerated in out-of-state facilities.
[14] Therefore, because Kansas state authorities, not Washington state authorities acting under the ICC, were responsible for providing required Kansas legal materials, the district court properly determined that Boyd named the wrong defendant. Furthermore, because a Kansas official would not have been subject to service of process in the state of Washington, any amendment of the complaint would have been futile. See Fed. R.Civ. P. 4(k). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Boyd's action with prejudice.
[15] AFFIRMED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16] *fn* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Accordingly, Boyd's request for oral argument is denied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 94-35147
[4] filed: April 21, 1995.
[5] JAMES ADOLPHIS BOYD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
TANA WOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. D.C. No. CV-93-00430-JLQ. Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding.
[7] James Adolphis Boyd, Pro per, Walla Walla, Washington, for the plaintiff-appellant.
[8] No appearance for the defendant-appellee.
[9] Before: Eugene A. Wright, Cecil F. Poole, and Charles Wiggins, Circuit Judges.
[10] Opinion*fn*
[11] Per Curiam:
[12] James Adolphis Boyd, a Kansas state prisoner housed at the Washington State Penitentiary pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC), appeals pro se the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Washington state prison authorities have denied him meaningful access to the courts because the law library at the Washington State Penitentiary contained inadequate Kansas state law materials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's determination that a claim is frivolous under § 1915(d), Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992), and we affirm.
[13] Here, we need only determine whether the Washington officials had the responsibility to assure Boyd reasonable access to the Kansas legal materials he needed for his allegedly pending litigation in the Kansas courts. This presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit. The Tenth Circuit has held that sending state authorities maintain the responsibility of providing required state legal materials for their prisoners incarcerated in sister state facilities. Clayton v. Tansy, 26 F.3d 980, 982 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Rich v. Zitnay, 644 F.2d 41, 43 (1st Cir. 1981) (state authorities housing state prisoner in federal prison in sister state remained responsible for providing prisoner with access to state legal materials). We agree with the Tenth Circuit, and hold that sending state authorities maintain responsibility for providing state legal materials to their prisoners incarcerated in out-of-state facilities.
[14] Therefore, because Kansas state authorities, not Washington state authorities acting under the ICC, were responsible for providing required Kansas legal materials, the district court properly determined that Boyd named the wrong defendant. Furthermore, because a Kansas official would not have been subject to service of process in the state of Washington, any amendment of the complaint would have been futile. See Fed. R.Civ. P. 4(k). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Boyd's action with prejudice.
[15] AFFIRMED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16] *fn* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Accordingly, Boyd's request for oral argument is denied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------