holding that restricted library access does not necessarily amount to a denial of access to courts, and that prison regulations reasonably limiting the times, places and manner in which inmates may engage in legal research and preparation of legal papers are permissible as long as the regulations do not frustrate access to the courts
How later courts described this case
- holding that restricted library access does not necessarily amount to a denial of access to courts, and that prison regulations reasonably limiting the times, places and manner in which inmates may engage in legal research and preparation of legal papers are permissible as long as the regulations do not frustrate access to the courts
- holding that restricted library access does not necessarily amount to denial of access to courts, and that prison regulations reasonably limiting times, places, and manner in which inmates may engage in legal research and preparation of legal papers are permissible as long as regulations do not frustrate access to courts
- holding that segregated inmates are entitled to at least one shower per week
- stating that the Constitution does not mandate “any specific amount of library time which prisoners must be provided; rather, access need only be reasonable and adequate”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KINNEARY, District Judge,
concurring.
I join Parts I through III of the Court’s Opinion, but concur in the result reached in Part IV without joining its reasoning. In my opinion, the reliance upon Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, supra is unnecessary. The district court should be affirmed on the basis of Hewitt v. Helms, supra which is controlling.