 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hull v. Stalder2/15/2002
ed States Supreme Court reviewed the claims of a post-conviction inmate, who asserted that his lack of access to law books denied him access to the courts. The Court held that "the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Bounds v Smith, 430 U.S. at 828, 97 S.Ct. at 1498. In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2180, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), the Court explained that "Bounds did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law library" but rather "a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts." Beyond that, the Lewis court held that to establish a Bounds violation the inmate must suffer "actual injury" or "actual harm" resulting from the "alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program." Lewis v. Casey, 518 So.2d U.S. 351, 116 S.Ct. 2180.
Because Hull asserts no claim of actual injury or harm that has resulted from his limited access to the prison library, his petition states merely a grievance against the prison system that addresses itself exclusively to the administration of the prison; it does not set forth a claim of deprivation of a constitutionally protected right. See Lightfoot v. Stalder, 2000-1120, p. 14 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/22/2001), ___ So.2d ___ (Gonzales, J. , concurring); Gibson v. Barnes, 597 So.2d 176, 177 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1992); Watts v. Phelps, 377 So.2d 1317, 1320 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1979), writ denied, 380 So.2d 1210 (La. 1980). As such, Hull's complaint about the prison's call-out procedure for library access is not the type of claim traditionally cognizable in a trial court, and thus is not a "civil matter" reserved for the trial court. Accordingly, because the administrative remedies set forth in La. R.S. 15:1171 et seq. provide the exclusive remedy available to Hull for the type of grievance presented, his grievance should have been processed through administrative channels before being reviewed by the commissioner and the trial court at the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Thus, the district court did not have jurisdiction over Hull's claim and its judgment sustaining the exception of no cause of action is void. La. C.C.P. art. 3; Robinson v. Parole & Prob. Div., Dep't of Public Safety & Corr., 2000-1574, p.4. Although the district court should not have considered the exception, it properly dismiss Hull's petition.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we vacate the portion of the trial court's judgment that sustained the exception of no cause of action and assessed costs to Hull and affirm the dismissal of the petition. Appeal costs in the amount of $372.78 are to be paid by Hull.
VACATED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|