Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338

Hebbe, a CSP-Sacramento inmate, pleaded guilty to two burglary counts and was sentenced to 18 years 4 months.
During November 1998 lockdown, Hebbe had almost no access to the prison law library or outdoor exercise.
Prison claimed emergency paging system provided limited legal access during lockdown; Hebbe contends he was unaware of it.
He alleges lockdowns prevented filing a pro se supplemental brief by December 18, 1998 deadline; California Court of Appeal advised him of the right to file pro se.
From Nov 1998 to Feb 2000 Hebbe spent about seven months in lockdown without library access or outdoor exercise; for eight months he could use the law library or exercise for two hours a day, four days a week.
District court dismissed the two §1983 claims; Ninth Circuit reverses and remands for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Court access rights during lockdowns	Hebbe—denial of law library access impeded filing a meritorious claim	Prison provided limited emergency access; no proven injury	Plaintiff's claim survives; plausible injury to access to courts
Eighth Amendment right vs. access to court rights	Forced choice between law library use and outdoor exercise violated Eighth Amendment	rights balanced; no outright deprivation shown	Claim survives; remand for further proceedings

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (right to access to courts requires adequate law libraries or assistance)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (actual injury rule; not freestanding right to a law library; must hinder a claim)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process in prison disciplinary proceedings; context for access to courts)
Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976 (2000) (Wende brief does not prove lack of meritorious claims; appellate access analysis)
Allen v. City and County of Honolulu, 39 F.3d 936 (1994) (cannot force choice between constitutionally protected rights)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se filings)