where inmate confined two and one-half years in jail with inadequate library, fact that he had filed several actions did not establish absence of prejudice in that with adequate library he may have been able to pursue other, meritorious claims
How later courts described this case
- where inmate confined two and one-half years in jail with inadequate library, fact that he had filed several actions did not establish absence of prejudice in that with adequate library he may have been able to pursue other, meritorious claims
- state law expressly made Director of state prison system responsible for welfare of state prisoners housed in other jails, but court suggested it would have held the Director responsible even absent that statute
- "There are significant differences between state and local facilities, including the average length of stay and the type of crime for which inmates are incarcerated which, taken together, reasonably support the argument that local jails, operating under limited budgets, were not required to meet the same obligations to inmates as the state facilities”
- "Because an inmate is unable to discover his rights when library access or other access is denied him, any complaint rightly alleging a present denial of access to a library or other assistance states a valid claim for equitable relief.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
While it is true that Hutto may be a proper party, the mere existence of a supervisory statutory duty is not enough to fix his liability for damages as we have specifically held in Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926 (4th Cir.1977). In Vinnedge we held that Gibbs, an underling of the Director of the Department of Corrections, was not liable because he had not been personally involved. It necessarily follows that the Director of Corrections, the superior, also may not be made liable by the mere existence of a supervisory statutory duty absent personal involvement.
I concur in that part of the opinion holding that Young is not a proper party.
I also concur in that part of the opinion holding Hutto to be immune from liability except that I believe the expression of possible liability expressed on a hypothetical fact situation in note 3 is unnecessary to our decision, and accordingly I do not concur in that expression.