Jacob v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs.
294 Neb. 735
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Inmate Steven M. Jacob possessed a personal Brother ML500 typewriter with text‑memory; Department policy prohibited returning typewriters with text‑memory capabilities if sent out for repair.
- Jacob sent the typewriter out for repairs after being told the Department would not return it; he filed an internal grievance asserting the policy impaired his right of access to the courts and sought a declaratory order.
- The Department denied the grievance without a hearing, stating the policy would not change; Jacob sued in district court for declaratory relief and for APA review.
- The district court initially dismissed Jacob’s petition as moot after Jacob later reported the typewriter was destroyed in transit; Jacob moved to alter or amend, filed a premature appeal, and this court dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded.
- On remand the district court granted Jacob’s motion to alter or amend, then sustained the Department’s renewed motion to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6), holding Jacob failed to allege actual injury or a state‑created heightened right to a personal typewriter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jacob stated a claim for declaratory relief that Department policy violated his right of access to courts | Jacob: policy denying return of typewriter impairs meaningful access to courts and §83‑4,123 creates protection | Dept: no constitutional or statutory right to a personal typewriter; no contested‑case APA appeal; no actual injury alleged | Dismissed: no claim — no federal/state right to a personal typewriter and no actual injury shown |
| Whether Nebraska statutes create a state‑level right greater than federal access‑to‑courts standard | Jacob: §§83‑4,123/83‑4,111 create heightened state right to tools (typewriter) for access | Dept: state law does not create atypical, significant hardship; Sandin limits state‑created rights | Held: Nebraska access rights coextensive with federal standard; statutes do not create heightened right |
| Whether lack of a personal typewriter can constitute an actionable denial of access to courts | Jacob: loss of typewriter hindered ability to prepare filings vs. limited law‑library access | Dept: inmates have no constitutional right to personal typewriter; must show actual prejudice to litigation | Held: No per se right to typewriter; plaintiff must show "actual injury" to nonfrivolous claim and failed to do so |
| Whether agency action was reviewable under the APA as a contested‑case final decision | Jacob: Department denial treated as a declaratory order and appealable under APA | Dept: denial of grievance without hearing is not a contested‑case final decision; APA review not available | Held: No contested case/no APA appeal; district court acted on declaratory relief route |
Key Cases Cited
- Rafert v. Meyer, 290 Neb. 219, 859 N.W.2d 332 (Neb. 2015) (motion to alter or amend tolls appeal period in declaratory judgment actions)
- American Inmate Paralegal Assoc. v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1988) (prisoners have no constitutional right to personal typewriters; officials need not provide one if access to courts is preserved)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (right of access to courts requires showing "actual injury" to nonfrivolous litigation)
- Payne v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 288 Neb. 330, 848 N.W.2d 597 (Neb. 2014) (adopts federal actual‑injury standard for access‑to‑courts claims in Nebraska)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (state statutes/regulations create heightened prisoner rights only if deprivation is atypical and significant)