McCree v. Grissom
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19281
7th Cir.2011Background
- McCree, a federal inmate, filed a Bivens complaint alleging officers deprived him of access to the courts while confined in Special Housing Unit.
- He claimed four months of limited/deficient access to the prison’s law library and difficulty using the new LexisNexis system after a January 2010 conversion.
- He lacked instruction on the new system, had to rely on a misplaced instruction manual, and alleged this hindered his ability to respond in a separate § 1983 suit.
- The district court dismissed his Bivens claim at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, for failure to allege an injury from denial of access to legal materials.
- On appeal, McCree argued the record showed prejudice to his § 1983 suit; the government argued he had access to the court, and any injury was not shown.
- The Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s dismissal, modifying the judgment to state it was with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCree demonstrated actual injury from denial of access | McCree shows prejudice to his § 1983 suit due to library denial. | No injury shown; access to the court was possible despite delays. | No injury shown; claim fails. |
| Whether the recall of the mandate in a related appeal establishes injury | Recall signifies merit of his § 1983 case. | Recall does not establish a cognizable injury to support a claim. | Recall did not establish injury; claim still fails. |
| Whether the district court should have allowed amendment | Amendment should be permitted when justice requires. | Amendment would be futile given the prior § 1983 dismissal. | Leave to amend would be futile; district court dismissal affirmed with prejudice. |
| Whether dismissal of the Bivens claim was proper | Access issues show constitutional violation warranting relief. | Record shows no viable injury or claim against defendants. | Dismissal proper; affirmed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (S. Ct. 2002) (actual injury required for access-to-courts claims)
- Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) (prejudice must be shown to state a claim)
- Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2006) (injury requirement in access-to-courts cases)
- Sykes v. United States, 614 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2010) (no deprivation of court access where multiple motions filed)
- Adkins v. VIM Recycling, Inc., 644 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2011) (judicial notice of related record allowed)
- Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2011) (accept factual allegations as true at screening)
- James Cape & Sons Co. v. PCC Constr. Co., 453 F.3d 396 (7th Cir. 2006) (leave to amend may be denied when amendment futile)