Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Brigitte Reynolds, Petitioner v. Anthony Stewart, Warden, et al.

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 2017

BRIGITTE REYNOLDS-PLAINTIFF

VS.

ANTHONY STEWART et al-RESPONDENT

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

INMATE NO. 671020

WOMEN'S HURON VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

3201 BEMIS ROAD

YPSILANTI, MICHIGAN 48197-0911

NO PHONE

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1. DID THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DECIDE DISPUTED

FACTUAL ISSUES AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; AND DID THE

SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT IMPROPERLY AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT

COURT?

2. WAS PLAINTIFF'S ACCESS.TO THE COURT EFFECTIVELY IMPEDED

WHEN DEFENDANT'S REFUSED TO LET HER REVIEW THE CD

TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE ALPENA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

SUFFERING PLAINTIFF ACTUAL INJURY?

3. WAS PLAINTIFF TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN PRISONERS

REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL?

14.

LIST OF PARTIES

[]All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[( ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties

to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:

Erica Reeves

Warden's Assistant Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility

3201 Bemis Road

Ypsilanti, Ml 48197-0911

Kari Osterhout

Deputy Warden

Programs

Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility

3201 Bemis Road

Ypsilanti, Ml 48197-0911

S. Holliwell

Warden's Assistant Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility

3201 Bemis Road

Ypsilanti, Ml 48197-0911

Tackett

Correctional Officer Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility

3201 Bemis Road

Ypsilanti, Ml 48197-0911

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.1

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION............................................................................................................................2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.................................3

STATEMENTOF THE CASE.....................................................................................................4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.................................................................................6

CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................13

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Reynolds v Stewart, et a!, No. 17-2293 US Sixth Circuit AFFIRM the judgment of the U.S. District

Court.

Mandate.

APPENDIX B

Reynolds v Stewart, et al, No. 17-10257 Notice of Appeal

APPENDIX C

Reynolds v Stewart, et al No. 17-10257 United States District Court Eastern District of

Michigan Judgment ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [16]; OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION [17]; GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [13]; AND

DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE.

APPENDIX D

Reynolds v Stewart, et at, No. 17-10257 United States District Court Eastern District of

Michigan Report and Recommendation.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

BoagvMacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,70 L.Ed.2d 551, 102 S.Ct 700 (1982)

8

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72(1977)

12

Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003)

11

Casey v. Lewis, 43 F.3d 1261 (1 994)

6. 1 3

Eberle v. Wilkinson, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46296.

Citing Carey v. Piphus, 435, U.S. 247, 266-267 (1978)

-

9

Fernandez vUS.,941 F.2d 1488 (llth Cir. 1991)

8

Hadix v. Johnson, 182 F.3d 400, 405 (6th Cir. 1999)

9

Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 715 (6th Cir. 1999)

11

Hughes v. Rowe, et al., 449 U.S. 5; 101 S. Ct. 173; 66 L. Ed. 2d 163;

1980 U.S. LEXIS 1; 49 U.S.L.W. 3346

8

Jasinski, supra at 538. (Quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,

129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009))

11

Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 288 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,

464 U.S. 917, 104 S. Ct. 282, 78 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1983)

13

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349

9

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346, 1165. Ct. 2174, 135L. Ed. 2d606(1996)

12

Nitz v. Hall, 473 Fed. Appx.5 13 (2012)

11

Parrish v. Johnson, 800 F.2d 600, 604 (6th Cir. 1986)

10

Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996)

-

12

Procunierv. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,412-413,40 L. Ed. 2d 224, 94 S. Ct. 1800 (1974)10

Root v. Towers, 238 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2000),

citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354-56; Pilgrim, 92 F.3d at 416

9

16

Simkins v. Bruce, 406 F.3d 1239, 1243 (lOth Cir. 2005)

6

Thaddeus-Xv. Blatier, 175 F.3d 378, 391 (6th Cir. 1999) (en bane)

7

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 79, 107 S. Ct. 2254(1987)

10

Urbina v. Thorns, 270 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir. 2001)

11

Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 932 (6th Cir. 1985)

13

Wolf McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)

9

STATUTES AND RULES

42 U.S.C. § 1983..........................................................................................................................4, 6

OTHER

FirstAmendment ..........................................................................................................6, 7,10,12,13

Const. Amends. 1, XIV

7

U.S. Const. Amend. V

6, 13

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 2017

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Plaintiff respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issues to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[v' ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix Ato the petition and

is

[]reported at

or,

has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[V] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears as Appendix C to the petition and is

or,

[ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[v"] is unpublished.

;

[

] For cases from state court:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at Appendix

petition and is

to the

or,

{ J reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

;

The opinion of the

petition and is

] reported at

[

court appears as Appendix _to the

or,

has

been

designated

for

publication

but is not yet reported; or,

]

is

unpublished.

]

;

JURISDICTION

[ 1'] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of appeals decided my case was April 25, 2018.

V' ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[

] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on the

and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at

following date:

Appendix

,

[

} An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and including .

(date) on

(date) in Application No. A-_

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

[

] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

of that decision appears at Appendix

.

A copy

] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[

] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and including .

(date) in Application No. A--

(date) on

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

U.S. CONST. AMEND. I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting

the free exercise thereof ,or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a

redress of grievances.

U.S. CONST. AMEND. V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless

on a presentment or indictment of a Grant Jury; except in cases arising in the land or

naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life

or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall

private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No

State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within itsjurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by a state prisoner who

alleges that her access to the courts was impeded by prison staff. The district court dimissed the

complaint with prejudice stating that plaintiff has not shown an actual injury and therefore, her

case is non-justiciable. The Magistrate Judge declined to consider the qualified immunity issue

because of the non-justiciability of plaintiffs claim. The Magistrate Judge also stated that

Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities are barred

under the Eleventh Amendment.

Plaintiff then appealed to the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The United

States Sixth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court's decision..

Plaintiff asserts that her United States Constitutional I, V and XIV Amendment rights as a

citizen of the United States have been violated.

4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Plaintiff alleged in a declaration under penalty of perjury that the Defendants

impeded her access to the courts, causing her actual injury.

On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff was summoned to control center for legal mail. However,

when Plaintiff arrived she was given a rejection notice because the 26th Judicial Court in Alpena,

Michigan, mailed a compact disc for her requested transcripts of a hearing she had in that court.

Plaintiff needed transcripts to request a reconsideration and appeal the circuit court's decision.

Correctional officer Tacket (E-9), told Plaintiff that she was not allowed to have the disc.

Plaintiff then contacted Deputy Osterhout, Mr. Holliwell, and Warden Stewart asking if Plaintiff

could at least view the disc and make notes for her to prepare a reconsideration/appeal; Plaintiff

had 21 days from June 3, 2016, to request a reconsideration from the Alpena circuit court.

Plaintiffs constitutional right of access of the courts was violated when, during the

limited time period in which she could have requested a reconsideration and/or appealed the

judge's decision, she was denied access to the CD provided by the 26' Judicial Circuit Court, to

prepare her pleading. Plaintiff was not provided with any alternative means of access to her

hearing transcripts as the lower court denied her request for a hard copy of the hearing

transcripts.

Plaintiff was prevented her possibility to prevail on a reconsideration and/or appeal of the

26th Circuit Court's decision, when Defendants imped her access to the courts by denying her to

view the CD. Plaintiff has made several attempts to contact Deputy Osterhout and Deputy

Warden Assistant Halliwill to view the compact disc, but never received a response or the

requested hearing. Plaintiff then filed a grievance.

The prison staff did not complete the grievance process within the Michigan Department

of Corrections policy's mandated 120 days.

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 presenting the following issues:

I.

Whether the district court improperly decided disputed factual issues and

dismissed with prejudice?

Whether the plaintiff's factual allegations of "impeding her access to the courts" by

prison officials raised a material issue under the First Amendment?

Whether the plaintiff was treated differently than prisoners represented by

counsel?

The U.S. District Court granted defendants motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Prisoners have a fundamental right of access to the courts under the First Amendment.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's confiscation and loss of legal materials blocked and effectively

prevented Plaintiff's access to the courts. Prisoners have a fundamental right of meaningful access to

the courts. The importance of this right cannot be overstated. It is the right upon which all other

rights depend. This right is founded in the due process clause, U.S. Const. Amend. V, and assures

that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning

violations of fundamental constitutional rights. Casey v. Lewis, 43 F.3d 1261 (1994). "[T]he

principle that unimpeded transmission of inmate legal mail is the 'most obvious and formal

manifestation' of the right of access to the courts has been clearly established for some time now."

Sirnkins v. Bruce, 406 F.3d 1239, 1243 (lØth Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

This petition should be granted because the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Michigan issued an Order dismissing with prejudice which was in error. The United

States Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision which was error.

The Plaintiff has shown that her United States Constitutional rights have been violated

and the decisions of the lower courts resulted in a decision that was contrary to clearly

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in their

interpretation of the United States Constitution for a constitutional right of access to the courts.

1. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DECIDED DISPUTED FACTUAL

ISSUES AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

COURT IMPROPERLY AGREED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT.

Discussion:

Plaintiff has brought actionable standing as access to the courts is a constitutional right to

seek redress on appeal for a criminal or civil rights appeal. Plaintiffs "right to access the courts.

extends to direct appeals, habeas corpus applications, and civil rights claims only." Thaddeus-X

v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 391 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc).

Plaintiff's constitutional right to seek redress from the circuit court was impeded when

named prison officials refused to allow her access to the compact disk sent from the circuit court.

Prisoner's constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts is fundamental as the

reality and substance of any of prisoner's protected rights is only as strong as his ability to seek

relief from the courts or otherwise to petition the government for redress of the deprivation of his

rights. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. I, XIV.

1.

A prisoner's right to meaningful access to the courts, along with his broader right to

petition the government for a redress of his grievances under the First Amendment, precludes

prison authorities from penalizing a prisoner for exercising those rights. In some instances,

prison authorities must even take affirmative steps to help prisoners exercise their rights Casey v

7

Lewis, 43 F3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1994). Federal judges should not be dealing with prisoner

complaints which, although important to prisoner, are so minor that any well-run institution

should be able to resolve them fairly without resort to federal judges. Jihaad v Carlson. 410

F.Supp. 1132(1976).

The District Court and Sixth Circuit Court limited Plaintiffs constitutional right to only

appeal of her criminal case or conditions of confinement. Impeding Plaintiffs access to the court,

when Plaintiff clearly grieved prison officials concerning that constitutional right, is a condition

of her confinement. Both courts erred in dismissing Plaintiffs 42 U.S.0 § 1983 Complaint.

Boag v MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,70 L.Ed.2d 551, 102 S. Ct 700 (1982): Pleadings filed by

individuals representing themselves are held to a less stringent standard than those prepared by

attorneys. Fernandez v U.S., 941 F.2d 1488 (1 1th Cir.1991): Federal courts are to liberally

construe the pleadings of pro se litigants.

2. PLAINTIFF'S ACCESS TO THE COURT WAS EFFECTIVELY IMPEDED

WHEN DEFENDANT'S REFUSED TO LET HER REVIEW THE CD

TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE ALPENA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

SUFFERING PLAINTIFF ACTUAL INJURY.

Discussion:

"Because the right to procedural due process is absolute in the sense that it does not

depend upon the merits of a claimant's substantive assertions, and because of the importance to

organized society that procedural due process be observed, the denial of procedural due process

should be actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury." Hughes v. Rowe, et

al., 449 U.S. 5; 101 S. Ct. 173; 66 L. Ed. 2d 163; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 1; 49 U.S.L.W. 3346.

8

"In order to prevail on a claim of denial of access to the courts, a plaintiff must establish

that he suffered actual injury as a result of the alleged denial. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349; see also

Hadix v. Johnson, 182 F.3d 400, 405 (6th Cir. 1999). "[A]ctual injury" does not occur "without a

showing that.. .a claim has been lost or rejected, or that the presentation of.. .a claim is currently

being prevented." Root v. Towers, 238 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2000), citing Lewis, 51 8 U.S. at 35456; Pilgrim, 92 F.3d at 416. In other words, an inmate who claims that his right of access to the

courts was denied must present evidence showing that he was actually impeded in an existing or

contemplated non-frivolous legal proceeding." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351-53; Hadix, 182 F.3d at

406. Eberle v. Wilkinson, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46296. Citing Carey v. Piphus, 435, U.S. 247,

266-267 (1978).

In Wolf McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) due process is often called basic fairness. In

the instant case, Plaintiff was deprived of her appeal from the order of the 26'Judicial Court in

Alpena, Michigan. The Alpena Court denied the return of property they seized from her

apartment while she was confined in the county jail. Upon completion of her trial Plaintiff

motioned the Court for the return of her seized property.

When Plaintiff requested transcripts to appeal the hearing the court held concerning the

return of her property. The Circuit Court sent a CD instead of paper transcripts. Correctional

officer Tacket (E-9), told Plaintiff that she was not allowed to have the disc. Plaintiff then

contacted Deputy Osterhout, Mr. Holliwell, and Warden Stewart so that Plaintiff could at least

view the disc and make notes for the reconsideration and appeal; Plaintiff had 21 days from June

3, 2016, to request a reconsideration from the circuit court for the hearing. The Supreme Court

has recognized that in the context of incoming inmate correspondence, a penal institution's

legitimate security needs justify certain measures that may infringe on inmates' First Amendment

and Sixth Amendment rights, as well as their right of access to the courts. See Procunier v.

Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,412-413,40 L. Ed. 2d 224, 94S. Ct. 1800 (1974). These measures, as

with other measures affecting inmates' constitutional rights, are valid if they are "reasonably

related" to the institution's security needs or other "legitimate penological interests". Turner v.

Safley, 482 U.S. 78,96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 79, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987). In evaluating whether a

particular measure satisfies this standard, a court must examine whether there is "a 'valid, rational

connection' between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to

justify it"; whether the "governmental objective [is]

"alternative means of exercising the right.

. .

. . .

a legitimate and neutral one"; whether

remain open to prison inmates"; the "impact

accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on

the allocation of prison resources generally"; and whether there are any ready alternatives to the

challenged regulation. Id. at 79-80. In the legal mail context, prison officials bear the burden of

putting "forth legitimate reasons for interfering with a prisoner's incoming mail." Parrish v.

Johnson, 800 F.2d 600, 604 (6th Cir. 1986).

The refusal to allow Plaintiff to view the Alpena circuit court's hearing proceeding to

prepare her appeal, impede Ms. Reynolds access to the court. This caused her acutal injury when

she was prevented from appealing the circuit court hearing.

It was imperative that Plaintiff viewed the hearing proceeding because while she attended

a video conference during the hearing proceeding, the power at the prison was intrupted and the

proceeding was cut off. Plaintiff had no knowledge what continued at the hearing and she

depended on the transcripts/CD, to prepare her appeal of the decision of that hearing, which is

10

clearly a due process right. The alleged denial of viewing the CD containing the proceeding

hindered/impede Plaintiffs ability to appeal a non-frivolous issue in the higher courts.

Plaintiffs lost chance to pursue an appeal of her constitutionally protected due process

access to the court, cannot be deemed "frivolous" without the higher court's ability to make that

judgment. Therein lies the "actual injury." "To state a denial-of-access claim, a prisoner has to

allege an actual injury--in other words, explaining the connection between the alleged denial of

access to legal materials and an inability to pursue a legitimate challenge to a conviction,

sentence, or prison conditions. The right of access protects prisoners from being shut out of

court, it does not exist to enable the prisoners to litigate effectively once in court." Nitz v. Hall,

473 Fed. Appx.513 (2012).

As Plaintiff is appearing pro Se, his Complaint' is held to less stringent standards than

those drafted by attorneys. Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003); Hahn v. Star

Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 715 (6th Cir. 1999). During screening, the Plaintiffs allegations are taken as

true and liberally construed in his favor. Urbina v. Thorns, 270 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir. 2001).

3.

PLAINTIFF WAS TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN PRISONERS

REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

Discussion:

"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."

Jasinski, supra at 538. (Quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)).

I Highly specific facts to support Plaintiff's claim are presented as best as possible considering Plaintiff's limited

capabilities and education.

Plaintiff requested but did not receive a hearing on the rejection of the CD. Plaintiff has

not been able to receive a viewing of the disc, which has been allowed to other inmates at this

facility when they requested to view disc's they received from the courts.

On November 6, 2016, a memo - was posted through December 6, 2016 to allow the

showing of your video related to your case. The memo stated, "Attorney's will be permitted to

show you video related to your case, it must be played on an MDOC owned DVD player."

Plaintiff was pro se for the Motion in the Alpena Circuit Court in that she did not have an

attorney and therefore, prison officials did not allow her to view the CD containing the

transcripts from the circuit court hearing.

Plaintiff demonstrated a fundamental violation of her Due Process, First Amendment

right to access to the courts. MDOC Defendants have knowingly interfered and prevented

Plaintiff from achieving this in the present instance. These clearly established rights of the

Plaintiff were in effect and known to MDOC Defendants at the time of the violation. MDOC

Defendants' had intent to violate and prevent said rights when they violated state procedure and

did not grant her a hearing on the rejected CD per policy, nor did they provide her with

supervised access to view the CD containing the transcripts from her Circuit Court hearing.

Plaintiff has a clearly established Due Process right to access to the courts. "Prisoners

have a fundamental right of access to the courts under the First Amendment. Lewis v. Casey, 51 8

U.S. 343, 346, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.

Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977); Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Such

access to the courts must be "adequate, effective, and meaningful." Bounds, 430 U.S. at 822.

Meaningful access embraces the right to adequately prepare and file the necessary legal

12

documents. Id., at 823-24; Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 288 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464

U.S. 917, 104 S. Ct. 282,78 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1983). Restrictions on the time, place, and manner in

which inmates may engage in legal research and preparation of legal papers are constitutional,

however, so long as the restrictions do not unreasonably frustrate the right of access to the

courts." Walker v. Minlzes, 771 F.2d 920, 932 (6th Cir. 1985). MDOC Defendants not only

frustrated Plaintiff Reynolds access to the court, she suffered actual injury when the avenues to

appeal and recover her seized property from her criminal case, were effectively blocked by

MDOC Defendants.

CONCLUSION

Prisoners have a fundamental right of access to the courts under the First Amendment.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants confiscation and loss of legal materials blocked and effectively

prevented Plaintiff access to the courts. Prisoners have a fundamental right of meaningful access to

the courts. The importance of this right cannot be overstated. It is the right upon which all other

rights depend. This right is founded in the due process clause, U.S. Const. Amend. V, and assures

that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning

violations of fundamental constitutional rights. Casey v. Lewis. 43 F.3d 1261 (1994).

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

13